I   A 


Bom  For 

.|l||j:    •'   and  V; 

,^f^     €«  ^    _  ^^Jr^B    •>WW  ^*Nfe' 

National  Defense 


H 


of 

Maxim 


GIFT  OF 


LEADING  OPINIONS 

BOTH  FOR  AND  AGAINST 

NATIONAL  DEFENSE 

A  SYMPOSIUM  OF  OPINIONS  OF  EMINENT  LEADERS 

OF  AMERICAN  THOUGHT  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF 

OUR  NEEDS  FOR  NATIONAL  DEFENSE 


COLLECTED  AND  ARRANGED  BY 

HUDSON  MAXIM 


A  HANDBOOK  AND  GUIDE  FOR  DEBATERS  AND  PUBLIC 
SPEAKERS  PRESENTING  BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  QUES- 
TION WITH  ABSOLUTE  IMPARTIALITY 


COMPLIMENTS   OF   HUDSON   MAXIM 
1916 


PUBLISHERS'  NOTICE 

Hudson  Maxim's  books  on  National 
Defense  may  be  ordered  through  book- 
sellers or  from  his  publishers,  as  follows : 

Defenseless  America,  Library  Edition, 
Extra  Cloth  prke  $2.OQ 

(By  mail  15  cents  extra) 


Defenseless   America,    Popular    Edi- 
tion, Complete,  Cloth  Binding 

Price  50  cents 
(By  mail  10  cents  extra) 


Leading  Opinions  Both  For  and 
Against  National  Defense.  Cloth 
Biding  Price  50  cents 

(By  mail  10  cents  extra) 

Descriptive  Circular  Free  On  Request 

Hearst's  International  Library  Co. 

119  West  40th  Street  New  York 


Copyright,   1916,  by 
HUDSON  MAXIM 


ft* 
d 


FOREWORD 

At  this  time,  when  the  people  of  the  other  great  nations  of  the  world 
are  destroying  one  another's  property,  robbing  one  another  and  cutting  one 
another's  throats,  it  is  only  natural  that  the  people  of  this  country  should 
begin  to  inquire  about  our  ability  to  protect  our  homes  from  destruction, 
our  property  from  plunder,  and  our  throats  from  being  cut,  in  the  event 
of  our  being  drawn  into  this  war,  or  into  a  war  with  any  of  the  belligerent 
nations  after  the  present  war  is  over. 

The  people  are  asking  questions  of  those  in  whom  they  have  confi- 
dence— asking  questions  of  those  who  are  supposed  to  know  what  our  needs 
actually  are  for  national  defense. 

The  persons  of  whom  the  people  are  inquiring  are  divided  into  two 
main  classes,  namely,  the  pacifists  or  advocates  of  unarmed  preparedness, 
and  the  martialists,  who  believe  in  armed  preparedness  against  war. 

The  pacifists  differ  widely  among  themselves.  Some  hold  the  extreme 
opinion  that  we  should  wholly  abandon  all  armed  preparation,  that,  in 
fact,  we  should  disarm  to  set  the  other  nations  a  great  moral  example,  and 
seek  to  maintain  peace  in  that  way,  while  others  believe  that  we  should 
have  some  armed  preparedness,  but  not  much.  The  martialists  also  differ 
among  themselves,  from  the  extreme  opinion  that  we  should  have  only  a 
little  armed  preparedness  to  the  opinion  that  we  should  have  such  adequate 
armed  protection  as  would  insure  the  country  against  war. 

While  the  pacifists  and  the  martialists  differ  widely  from  each  other, 
arid  among  one  another,  regarding  the  matter  of  armed  preparedness, 
they  are,  however,  all  in  perfect  agreement  that  we  want  peace  and  that 
we  should  take  such  measures  as  shall  best  insure  the  country  against  war. 

Therefore,  there  is  but  one  question  at  issue,  and  it  is  as  to  the  best 
and  most  practical  insurance  that  should  be  sought  against  war. 

This  country  being  a  democracy,  the  destiny  of  the  nation  rests  upon 
the  opinions  of  the  people.  That  thing  and  only  that  thing  will  be  done, 
or  can  be  done,  which  the  majority  of  the  people  believe  ought  to  be  done. 
It  is,  therefore,  the  plain  duty  of  the  people — and  happily  they  are  seeing 
more  and  more  that  it  is  their  duty — to  give  the  necessary  attention  and 
study  to  this  subject  to  inform  themselves  upon  it,  and  shape  their  opinions 
according  to  the  evidence. 

Consequently,  the  essentials  of  the  reasons  and  arguments  of  both  the 
pacifists  and  the  martialists  should  be  laid  before  the  people  for  their  ex- 
amination and  appraisement,  and  for  their  guidance  according  to  the  evi- 
dence as  they  may  see  and  understand  it. 

It  is  for  this  purpose  that  I  am  sending  this  booklet,  together  with 
my  book,  "  Defenseless  America,"  to  a  certain  number  of  men  and  womea 
among  the  leaders  of  American  thought  and  shapers  of  public  opinion. 

To  this  end  I  have  asked  some  distinguished  persons  throughout  the 
country  to  write  me  a  letter  expressing  their  opinions  upon  the  subject  of 
national  defense  by  answering  the  three  following  questions: 


4  FOREWORD 

I.  Do  we  need  any  armed  preparedness  for  our  protection  in  the  present 

state  of  armed  preparedness  of  other  nations,  in  the  absence  of  an 
international  tribunal  for  the  judicial  settlement  of  disputes,  and  in 
the  absence  of  an  international  armed  police  force  to  compel  inter- 
national good  behavior? 

II.  If  you  think  that  we  need  any  armed  preparedness,  what  measures  of 

preparedness  do  you  think  would  be  adequate? 

III.  If  you  think  that  we  should  have  adequate  armed  preparedness,  how 

soon  should  we  try  to  have  it,  and  at  what  expense? 

In  presenting  these  letters  to  the  reader,  I  have  made  no  criticisms  or 
other  comment  upon  them,  in  order  that  the  reader  may  read  them  with 
an  unbiased  mind,  and  arrive  at  an  impartial  decision  according  to  the 
evidence  as  he  may  see  it.  HUDSON  MAXIM. 


INDEX  OF  CONTENTS 

P1.G15 

Foreword  3 

Letters  from  Eminent  Leaders  of  American  Thought  who  believe  in 

National  Defense — Armed  Preparedness  Against  War  .  .  7 

Letters  from  Eminent  Leaders  of  American  Thought  who  do  not 

believe  in  National  Defense — Armed  Preparedness  Against  War  40 

Opinions  Against  National  Defense — Armed  Preparedness  Against 
War — expressed  in  the  Writings  and  Public  Speeches  of  the 
most  noted  Opponents  of  National  Defense  .  .  .  .  .  46 

The  War  in  Europe  and  Its  Lessons  for  Us,  Address  by  William 

Jennings  Bryan,  delivered  at  Johnstown,  Pa.,  November  1,  1915  47 

The  Nation's  Preparedness,  Statement  given  to  Press  of  North  Caro- 
lina, November  20,  1915,  by  Hon.  Claude  Kitchin  (House 
leader) 64 

Concerning  Preparedness — the  famous  Henry  Ford  advertisement       .       73 

The  Preparedness  of  America,  Address  by  Dr.  Nicholas  Murray 

Butler,  at  Railroad  Club,  New  York,  December  18,  1914  .  .  77 

A  Memorial  to  the  Members  of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representa- 
tives of  the  United  States  of  America  from  the  Religious 
Society  of  Friends  of  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey,  Delaware  and 
Parts  of  Maryland 79 

Extracts  from  "  The  Cause  of  the  War,"  by  Dr.  Charles  Edward  Jef- 
ferson, published  by  Thomas  Y.  Crowell  Co.,  December,  1914  .  81 

Shoulder  Arms!  An  Editorial  by  Hamilton  Holt,  from  The  Inde- 
pendent of  October,  1915 84 

The  Pros  and  Cons  of  Preparedness — Outline  for  Debate,  from  The 

Literary  Digest  of  February  26,  1916  .  .  .  .  .  .  86 

Extracts  from  Argument  of  Rev.  William  Carter,  D.D.,  on  The 
Necessity  of  Preparedness,  at  the  Broadway  Tabernacle,  New 
York,  on  February  8,  1916 90 

Answers  to  Arguments  of  the  Pacifists,  by  Hudson  Maxim     .        .        .100 

A  Letter  from  Theodore  Roosevelt 116 

A  Short  Speech  or  Declamation  on  National  Defense       .        .        .        .120 

To  Arms  for  Peace!     A  poem.     Anonymous 121 


INDEX  OF  CONTENTS  (Continued) 

Page 

Addenda  > ... 127 

Briefs  by  Hudson  Maxim: 

On  the  Colossal  Folly  of  the  Proposition  for  the  Government 
to  Manufacture  All  Munitions  of  War. 

On  the  Proof  That  Munition  Makers  in  Working  for  Prepar- 
edness Are  Working  Against  Their  Own  Profits. 

A   Message   to   Patriotic   Americans — An   Answer   to    Henry 
Ford  by  Hudson  Maxim. 


LETTERS 

FEOM    EMINENT    LEADEES    OF    AMERICAN 

THOUGHT   WHO   BELIEVE    IN   NATIONAL 

DEFENSE— AEMED  PEEPAEEDNESS 

AGAINST  WAE. 

From  HON.  OSCAR  S.  STRAUS,  Noted  Statesman,  Philosopher,  Phi- 
lanthropist and  Author;  Member  Permanent  Court  of  Arbitration  at 
The  Hague. 

5  West  76th  Street,  New  York  City, 

March  17,  1916. 

My  dear  Mr.  Maxim: — I  have  your  letter  of  the  17th  instant  asking  certain 
questions  in  regard  to  Preparedness,  which  I  will  answer  as  I  understand 
them. 

I  am  one  of  those  who  believes  in  the  domination  of  reason  and  in  the 
ideals  of  justice,  not  only  as  between  man  and  man  but  as  between  nation 
and  nation.  America  has  been  foremost  among  the  nations  in  promoting 
peace  conferences  and  in  the  negotiation  of  arbitration  treaties.  I  was  in 
the  fullest  sense  a  pacifist — and  I  believe  I  am  one  yet — but  I  confess  I 
have  changed  my  mind  as  to  the  best  means  of  promoting  peace  among 
nations.  The  causes  that  brought  on  this  world  war  and  the  trampling 
down  of  neutral  rights  have  produced  a  rude  awakening  and  aroused  many 
of  us  out  of  dreams  and  illusions.  We  would  be  blind  to  facts  in  not 
recognizing  that  this  war  has  let  loose  throughout  the  world  the  spirit  of 
conquest,  the  hunger  for  territory  and  the  disregard  for  neutral  rights. 

The  nations  that  have  lived  longest  have  invariably  been  the  strongest, 
so  long  as  that  strength  was  used  for  security  and  protection,  instead  of 
for  aggression.  But  some  will  say  that  our  country  is  an  exception,  that 
we  have  unlimited  resources  and  that  we  need  not  fear  attack  by  any 
nation.  The  answer  is:  The  extent  of  our  opportunities,  the  vastness  of 
our  wealth,  instead  of  being  a  security,  unless  we  employ  it  in  part  to 
increase  our  power  of  defense,  will  only  be  a  mark  of  weakness  and  an 
invitation  for  aggression. 

But  entirely  apart  from  the  menace  of  foreign  attack,  if  America  is 
to  be  an  effective  influence  either  now  or  hereafter  in  the  promotion  of  the 
peace  of  the  world,  we  must  be  strong  and  we  have  no  right  to  shirk  our 
duty  and  cast  upon  weaker  nations  the  burden  of  responsibilities  of  advo- 
cating neutral  rights,  the  sanctity  of  international  obligations  and  the 
rights  of  humanity,  and  that  too  at  a  time  when  international  influence 
is  measured  by  the  power  to  enforce  respect,  not  only  for  its  own  security 
but  also  for  its  potency  in  the  council  of  nations. 

But  it  will  be  said  that  armaments  are  provocative  of  war,  that,  they 
promote  the  spirit  of  militarism.  That  is  true  where  armaments  are  piled 
up  for  the  sake  of  domination,  but  armaments  for  defense,  dominated  by 
the  civil  spirit,  is  not  militarism  but  a  bulwark  for  the  maintenance  of 
tke  reign  of  law  and  justice  in  the  world. 

7 


8  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

During  three  periods  of  my  life,  in  the  past  twenty-eight  years,  I 
represented  our  country  at  Constantinople  and  saw  at  close  range  the  play 
of  diplomacy  of  the  Great  Powers  and  I  invariably  found  that  where  ques- 
tions of  vital  importance  were  at  stake  the  diplomacy  of  the  stronger 
powers  won  out. 

It  is  a  mistake  to  believe  that  armies  and  navies  are  of  no  value  when 
not  in  use.  Their  greatest  potency  is  often  shown  in  times  of  peace  and 
in  promoting  peace  as  the  background  of  effective  diplomacy. 

Whether  this  war  will  end  by  the  victory  of  one  side  or  the  other  or 
by  exhaustion,  no  one  at  this  time  can  definitely  foretell.  At  any  rate  our 
country  should  be  prepared  for  every  contingency,  and  by  preparation  I 
mean  should  have  at  its  command  adequate  power  for  its  security. 

Parents  who  simply  love  their  children  but  are  not  willing  to  make 
sacrifices  for  their  bringing  up  and  education  and  to  safeguard  them  in 
health  and  in  sickness  may  be  very  affectionate,  but  they  are  not  good 
parents.  So  it  is  with  patriotism.  It  is  not  enough  to  love  one's  country, 
we  must  do  more,  we  must  be  willing  to  make  sacrifices  for  it  and  take 
forethought  and  protection  to  safeguard  her  interests  and  to  protect  her 
under  all  contingencies  from  dangers  without  as  well  as  from  dangers 
within. 

Further  answering  your  questions,  I  am  not  able  to  state  what  amount 
of  preparedness  we  should  provide  for.  I  would  leave  that  to  the  military 
and  naval  experts,  but  certainly  the  amount  should  be  sufficient  and  ade- 
quate to  insure  security.  We  should  go  forward  in  securing  that  prepara- 
tion at  once.  The  delay  has  already  been  too  great  and  had  we  followed 
the  urgings  and  warnings  so  forcibly  put  forward  for  years  past  by 
Theodore  Roosevelt,  we  would  today  be  a  much  more  potent  force  for  peace 
than  we  are  now  in  our  comparative  weakness. 

Very  truly  yours, 

(Signed)     OSCAB  S.  STBAUS. 

From  HON.  JOSEPH  H.  CHOATE,  Ambassador  to  Great  Britain,  1899- 
1905;  Ambassador  and  first  delegate  United  States  to  International 
Peace  Conference  at  the  Hague,  1907;  Vice-President  American 
Society  for  Judicial  Settlement  International  Disputes. 

8  East  63rd  Street,  New  York, 

March  17,  1916. 

My  dear  Mr.  Maxim: — I  can  only  say  in  answer  to  your  letter  of  March 
seventeenth  that  in  my  opinion  in  the  present  state  of  armed  preparedness 
of  other  nations  we  need  a  vast  deal  of  addition  both  to  our  army  and 
navy,  and  to  our  national  reserves,  but  as  to  what  form  these  additions 
should  take,  I  must  refer  you  to  the  expert  reports  of  the  Army  Board  and 
the  Navy  Board,  and  whatever  is  done  ought  to  be  done  without  any  delay 
that  is  possibly  avoidable. 

Very  truly  yours, 

(Signed)     JOSEPH  H.  CHOATE. 

From  ELBERT  H.  GARY,  Chairman  and  Chief  Executive  Officer  United 
States  Steel  Corporation. 

71  Broadway,  New  York, 

March  20,  1916. 
My  dear  Mr.  Maxim: — I  have  your  letter  of  the  17th  instant. 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  9 

1.  Yes,  I  think  we  should  have  a  navy  fully  equal  to  that  of  any 
other  nation. 

2.  I  think  we  should  have  a  standing  army  of  at  least  250,000  well- 
trained  men  and  a  reserve  force,  subject  to  Federal  control,  which  could 
be  mobilized  and  equipped  on  short  notice;  a  large  stock  of  military  equip- 
ment should  be  available  at  all  times;  also  we  should  have,  removed  from 
the  seacoast,  adequate  facilities  for  keeping  the  army  and  navy  well  supplied 
with  their  necessities. 

3.  We  should  complete  preparedness  as  soon  as  practicable  and  at 
an  expense  of  $1,000,000,000,  or  more,  per  year  until  we  are  prepared  and 
after  that  a  sufficient  amount  to  keep  the  country  in  a  state  of  preparedness. 

With  kind  regards,  I  am, 

Sincerely  yours, 

(Signed)     E.  H.  GARY. 

From  CORNELIUS  VANDERBILT. 

30  Pine  Street,  New  York, 

March  17th,  1916. 

Dear  Mr.  Maxim: — In  reply  to  your  letter  of  even  date  asking  me  for  an 
expression  of  opinion  on  the  subject  of  national  defense,  I  beg  to  reply  to 
your  questions  as  follows: 

1.  Yes. 

2.  The  sentiments  expressed  in  the  resolutions  unanimously  adopted 
at  the  conference  of  Mayors   and  Mayors'   Committees   in   St.   Louis   on 
March  4th,  1916   (copy  of  which  I  enclose),  express  my  views. 

3.  At  once  and  at  almost  any  expense. 

Yours  very  truly, 

(Signed)     C.  VANDEBBILT. 

Enclosure  mentioned  in  Mr.  Vanderbilt's  letter: 

NATIONAL  DEFENSE 

CONFERENCE  OF  MAYORS  AND  MAYORS'  COMMITTEES 
Resolutions  Unanimously  Adopted  at  St.  Louis,  March  4,  1916. 

WHEREAS,  The  purpose  of  the  establishment  of  the  Republic  was, 
among  other  things,  to  provide  for  the  common  defense,  and  thereby  to 
secure  to  ourselves  the  blessings  of  liberty  and  peace,  and 

WHEREAS,  This  nation  is  today  without  adequate  defense  by  sea  or 
land,  and  is  almost  wholly  without  the  means  to  protect  its  territory, 
defend  its  people  or  safeguard  its  institutions  against  possible  aggression, 
and 

WHEREAS,  For  the  common  national  defense  there  are  required: 
An  adequate  navy, 
Ample  coast  defenses, 
A  mobile  army,  and 

A  mobilization  of  the  organized  physical  resources  of  the  nation,  and 
WHEREAS,  The  General  Board  of  the  Navy  has  reported  to  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Navy  that  "  our  present  Navy  is  not  sufficient  to  give  due 
weight  to  the  diplomatic  remonstrance  of  the  United  States  in  peace  nor 
to  enforce  its  policies  in  war,"  and 

WHEREAS,  We  believe  that  the  navy  should  be  increased  with  all  speed 
until  we  shall  have  become  the  first  naval  power  of  the  world,  wjth  strength 


10  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

on  the  Atlantic  equal  to  that  of  any  other  power  upon  that  oceais  and 
with  additional  strength  upon  the  Pacific  such  as  to  make  of  us  the  first 
naval  power  upon  that  ocean,  and 

WHEREAS,  The  general  staff  of  the  army  has  submitted  to  the  War 
Department  a  plan  for  a  moderate  increase  of  the  regular  army  and  for 
the  organization,  distribution  and  equipment  thereof,  and  for  the  increase 
and  complete  manning  of  coast  defenses;  NOW,  THEREFORE,  BE  rr 

Resolved,  That  we,  the  mayors  and  members  of  Mayors'  Committees 
upon  National  Defense  of  the  Cities  of  the  United  States,  in  convention 
assembled,  do  hereby  demand  the  immediate  authorization  by  Congress  of 
the  building  program  of  the  General  Board  of  the  Navy  of  July  30,  1915, 
together  with  such  additions  and  modifications  as  their  expert  knowledge 
and  experience  may  indicate  to  be  necessary  at  this  time.  And  we  do 
further  demand  that  the  personnel  of  the  navy  be  increased  in  conformity 
with  the  requirements  of  the  service  as  interpreted  by  the  General  Board. 

Resolved,  That  we  demand  the  increase  and  complete  manning  of  coast 
defenses  as  recommended  by  the  General  Staff. 

Resolved,  That  we  demand  the  immediate  increase,  organization  and 
disposition  of  the  regular  army  as  recommended  by  the  General  Staff. 

Resolved,  That  recognizing  the  military  obligation  equally  with  the 
civic  obligation  as  a  fundamental  duty  of  Democratic  citizenship  in  a 
Republic,  and  to  establish  a  system  which  will  affect  alike  every  man  in 
the  Republic,  we  approve  and  recommend  the  adoption  of  universal  military 
training  under  Federal  control  throughout  the  United  States. 

Resolved,  That  we  approve  and  recommend  the  immediate  formulation 
of  plans  by  the  Federal  Government  for  the  organization  and  mobilization 
of  the  physical  resources  of  the  country,  and  to  that  end,  among  other 
things,  we  specifically  recommend: 

That  all  arsenals,  ordnance,  rifle  and  other  munition-producing  plants 
supported  by  Federal  appropriation  be  located  at  a  distance  from  the 
Atlantic  and  Pacific  seaboards  and  from  the  Canadian  and  Mexican  borders 
as  recommended  in  the  recent  report  of  the  General  Staff  of  the  Army. 

That  steps  be  taken  by  the  Federal  Government  to  effect  in  time  of 
peace  a  standardization  of  all  material  which  may  be  required  by  the 
Government  in  time  of  war. 

That  the  transportation  facilities,  industries  and  general  resources  of 
the  country  be  so  marshaled  and  organized  as  to  make  them  promptly 
available  for  service  upon  the  outbreak  of  war. 

That  Federal  legislation  to  effectuate  the  foregoing  be  enacted  by  the 
present  Congress. 

And  ~be  it  further  Resolved,  That  copies  of  these  resolutions  be  at  once 
transmitted  to  the  Senate  and  to  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  that  a 
copy  thereof  be  transmitted  at  once  to  each  senator  and  representative  of 
the  national  Congress. 

From  Professor  GARRETT  PUTNAM  SERVISS,  one  of  the  most  noted 
American  scientists  and  litterateurs. 

Closter,  New  Jersey, 

March  17th,  1916. 

Dear  Mr.  Maxim: — I  am  very  glad  to  answer  your  questions,  to  the  beat 
of  my  ability,  as  follows: 

1.    We  do,  most  emphatically,  need  armed  preparedness.     We  should 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  11 

need  it  in  any  case,  but,  as  things  now  are,  we  need  it  in  the  fullest 
measure,  and  we  need  to  get  it  in  the  shortest  possible  time. 

2.  We  should  have  a  million  thoroughly  trained  soldiers,  exclusively 
under  the  national  colors,  and  national  control,  ready  to  take  the  field 
instanter,  and,  in  addition,  we  should  have  four  million  more  sufficiently 
instructed  and  trained  to  need  but  a  few  months  to  make  them  available 
for  the  front.    We  should  have  professionally  educated  and  trained  officers, 
under  the  national,  and  not  state,  government,  sufficient  to  command  in  the 
field,  at  the  first  call,  a  million  men;   and  there  should  be  a  reserve  of 
officers  equal  to  say  four  times  the  number  actually  needed  at  one  time  in 
the  field.     It  is  the  officers  that  the  enemy  try  to  kill.     We  should  have, 
on  hand,  equipment  in  arms,  munitions,  provisions,  machinery,  transporta- 
tion service,  etc.,  sufficient  to  keep  a  million  men  fighting,  from  the  start, 
and  we  should  have,  in  suitable  and  safe  locations,  arms  and  munition 
factories,  under  the  management  and  control  of  the  national  government. 
We  should  not  fritter  away  any  of  our  energy  and  money  on  state  militias 
in  any  form.    They  are  a  source  of  weakness,  jealousy,  distrust,  disunion, 
and  potential  disaster.    Let  the  national  government  take  care  of  war. 

3.  I  would  say  "  tomorrow,"  if  that  were  possible.     Let  us  have  an 
energetic  beginning  at  once.    There  is  not  an  instant  to  lose.    The  ultimate 
limit  of  expenses  should  be  the  bottom  of  Uncle   Samuel's  pocket;    the 
immediate  limit  should  be  determined  by  a  summation  of  the  contents  of 
all  the  "  pork  barrels  "  trundled  by  professional  Congressmen — a  battalion 
for  every  barrel! 

Sincerely  yours, 

(Signed)     GABBETT  P.  SEEVISS. 

From   COLONEL  WILLIAM  CONANT  CHURCH,  Editor  United  States 
Army  and  Navy  Journal. 

20  Vesey  Street,  New  York, 

»  March  20,   1916. 

My  dear  Mr.  Maxim: — The  law  of  the  United  States  adopted  in  1792  and 
re-enacted  in  1903  and  1908  in  what  is  known  as  the  Dick  bill  provides 
that  every  citizen  of  the  United  States  included  in  the  ages  from  18  to  45, 
with  the  exception  of  certain  statutory  exemptions,  is  subject  to  a  call 
to  military  service  whenever,  in  the  sole  discretion  of  the  President  of 
the  United  States,  he  is  needed  for  the  public  defense.  The  adoption  of 
the  original  act  of  1792  was  the  result  of  the  revelation  of  our  military 
inefficiency  during  the  war  of  the  Revolution,  and  it  was  sought  to  estab- 
lish an  Army  of  the  People  such  as  was  then  unknown  but  has  since  been 
adopted  by  Germany  and  other  European  states.  No  pay  was  provided 
under  this  law  for  the  American  citizens  enrolled  in  what  were  named 
the  "  Militia "  and  they  were  even  required  to  furnish  their  own  arms  and 
ammunition,  under  the  law  of  1792,  but  this  law  was  changed  in  1903  to 
provide  arms  for  the  Organized  Militia. 

The  maxim  of  Washington,  Knox  and  other  militant  patriots  of  that 
early  day  was  that  the  best  protection  for  the  Republic  was  a  well-trained 
militia.  Congress  accepted  the  principle  of  universal  service  but  haa 
neglected  up  to  this  time  to  provide  any  training  for  the  young  men  who 
are  subject  to  a  call  to  arms  whenever  the  country  is  in  danger. 

What  is  needed  for  preparedness  is,  therefore,  primarily  the  carrying 
out  of  the  idea  of  our  Revolutionary  forefathers  with  reference  to  universal 
military  training  ae  the  accompaniment  of  the  obligation  of  universal 


12       .  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

military  service.  It  follows  that  the  country  should  also  make  provision 
for  arming  our  young  men  to  do  efficient  service  as  soldiers  and  should 
further  provide  for  the  security  of  our  coasts  by  the  adoption  of  the  most 
complete  measures  of  defense  by  land  or  by  sea,  according  to  the  teachings 
of  the  latest  experience  in  war.  In  connection  with  this  we  should  have 
a  systematic  co-ordination  of  the  great  manufacturing  and  industrial  re- 
sources of  the  country  and  its  transportation  facilities  so  that  these  could 
be  made  promptly  effective  to  sustain  and  assist  the  men  on  the  firing  line. 

"He  who  hesitates  is  lost,"  and  having  once  admitted  the  necessity 
for  preparedness  there  should  be  no  delay  in  commencing  the  work  of 
preparation  and  pushing  it  to  a  completion  as  rapidly  as  possible.  Our 
resources  in  men,  money,  mechanical  construction  and  the  facilities  for 
rapid  transportation  are  ample.  It  needs  only  that  we  co-ordinate  them 
so  that  they  can  be  promptly  directed  on  any  danger  point. 

Such  preparation  as  is  here  suggested  in  no  way  interferes  with  the 
consideration  of  the  theories  of  arbitration  and  the  formation  of  inter- 
national agreements  to  compel  peace.  But  "  to  be  weak  is  to  be  miserable  " 
and  it  is  only  by  developing  the  spirit  of  nationality,  through  a  union  for 
public  defense,  that  we  can  make  ourselves  respected  in  the  Congress  of 
Nations  and  insure  the  peaceful  control  of  our  affairs  without  fear  of 
foreign  interference  or  aggression. 

Sincerely  yours, 

(Signed)     WM.  CONANT  CHUBCH. 

From    Commodore    J.    STUART    BLACKTON,    President    The   Vitagraph. 
Company  of  America,  Author  "  The  Battle  Cry  of  Peace." 

The  Vitagraph  Company  of  America, 

Locust  Avenue,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y., 

March  20,  1916. 

My  dear  Mr.  Maxim: — Replying  to  your  letter  of  March  19th  regarding 
an  expression  of  my  opinion  upon  the  subject  of  national  defense,  answering 
question  No.  1,  I  would  say: 

That  we  not  only  need  armed  preparedness  for  our  protection  in  the 
present  state  of  armed  preparedness  of  other  nations,  but  we  would  need 
it  if  there  existed  an  international  tribunal  for  the  judicial  settlement  of 
disputes;  for  without  armed  preparedness  we  would  not  be  sure  of  our 
place  in  that  international  tribunal;  and  we  would  need  armed  prepared- 
ness even  if  there  existed  an  international  armed  police  force  to  compel 
international  good  behavior.  The  very  term  "  international  police  force  " 
would  make  it  necessary  for  us  to  have  our  share  of  armed  preparedness 
in  order  to  contribute  our  share  of  police  to  that  international  armed 
police  force. 

Answering  question  No.  2:  I  think  that  our  first  line  of  defense, 
the  Navy,  should  be  brought  up  to  at  least  second  place  instead  of  fifth 
and  that  this  navy  should  be  of  such  weight,  power  and  equipment  as  to 
safeguard  both  our  Atlantic  and  Pacific  coasts  at  one  and  the  same  time. 
Protected  in  this  manner  by  our  navy  and  with  a  regular  army  of  five 
hundred  thousand  men  properly  equipped  with  modern  arms  and  ammuni- 
tion, America  could  uphold  the  Monroe  Doctrine  and  safeguard  her  interests 
and  her  citizens  not  only  in  the  United  States,  but  everywhere  on  the  face 
of  the  globe. 

Answering  question  No.  3:  I  feel  that  as  a  year  and  a  half  has 
already  been  wasted,  during  which  time  the  defenses  of  this  country  could 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  13 

have  been  greatly  improved,  every  effort  should  be  put  forth  to  remedy 
this  criminal  negligence  and  provide  for  adequate  armed  preparedness  at 
the  earliest  possible  moment  and  without  regard  to  expense.  When  this 
is  accomplished,  then,  and  then  only,  will  our  country,  our  lives,  our 
families  and  our  properties  be  safe  from  the  Modern  Madness  of  War. 

Very  truly  yours, 

(Signed)     J.  STUART  BLACKTON. 

From  Hon.  JAMES  F.  FIELDER,  Governor  of  the  State  of  New  Jersey. 

State  of  New  Jersey, 

Executive  Department, 

March  18,  1916. 

My  dear  Mr.  Maxim: — I  reply  to  the  questions  propounded  in  your  letter 
of  the  17th  instant,  as  follows: 

1.  In  my  judgment  we  do. 

2.  An  increase  in  the  regular  army  and  navy;    facilities   for  West 
Point  and  Annapolis  training  of  a  greater  number  of  young  men  each  year ; 
building  up  the  State  Militia  as  a  reserve  army,  through  increased  Federal 
appropriations,  a  small  amount  of  pay  for  the  officers  and  men,  stricter 
federal  supervision  and  requiring  the  militiamen  to  enlist  in  the  federal, 
as  well  as  state  service. 

3.  We  should  commence  at  once  and  incur  any  expense  necessary  to 
make  a  good  job  of  it. 

Very  truly  yours, 

(Signed)     JAMES  F.  FIELDER. 

From  Rev.  Dr.  CHARLES  H.  PARKHURST. 

Hotel  Ansonia,  New  York  City. 

March  18,  1916. 

My  dear  Sir: — Unlike  many  of  my  clerical  brethren  I  believe  in  thorough 
"  preparedness,"  for  self -protective  purposes.  It  is  not  an  ideal  policy, 
but  we  are  not  living  in  an  ideal  world.  Now  that  international  pledges 
have  ceased  to  be  binding,  we  have  to  accept  something  as  substitute. 
Our  country,  with  its  beneficent  institutions,  we  hold  in  trust,  and  are 
charged  with  the  responsibility  of  using  our  stewardship  wisely  and  there- 
fore of  conserving  the  assets  which  it  devolves  upon  us  to  make  available 
for  the  world's  benefit.  How  extensive  our  preparedness  requires  to  be 
in  order  to  serve  this  purpose  is  a  question  to  be  answered  by  those  who 
have  the  requisite  information  and  who  are  experts  in  military  and  naval 
matters. 

Yours  with  great  respect, 

(Signed)     C.  H.  PARKHUBST. 

From  LIEUT.  BARON  HROLF  VON  DEWITZ,  Danish  Military  Engineer, 
Authtfr  "  Wear's  New  Weapons." 

Atlantic  Beach  Hotel, 

Atlantic  Beach,  Florida, 

March  18,  1916. 

Dear  Mr.  Maxim: — In  answer  to  your  favor  of  17th  instant,  in  which  you 
do  me  the  honor  of  asking  me  to  contribute  my  opinion  to  a  symposium 
on  preparedness,  I  think  I  can  answer  the  three  questions  you  put  in  a 
single  statement,  to  wit: 

Nothing  short  of  a  good  licking  by  a  first-class  power  will  teach  you 


H  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

Americans  the  lessons  of  preparedness,  for  what  you  need  to  maintain  your 
sovereignty  as  a  nation  on  a  basis  of  permanency  is  not  a  large  army 
an4  navy  so  much  as  national  discipline  and  practical  patriotism  so  that 
the  individual  citizen  will  gladly  sacrifice  a  part  of  his  time  and  strength 
for  the  paramount  needs  of  the  nation  and  the  defense  of  the  country. 
No  American  has  a  right  to  consider  himself  a  true  American  who  is  not 
willing  to  serve  as  a  conscript  under  the  colors  in  times  of  peace  in  order 
that  his  country  may  be  properly  prepared  in  times  of  war. 

Yours  faithfully, 

(Signed)     DEWITZ. 

From  CLEVELAND  MOFFETT,  Noted  Writer,  Author  of  "Saving  the 
Nation  "  and  many  other  important  works. 

153  East  56th  Street,  New  York  City, 

March  18,  1916. 

Dear  Mr.  Maxim: — Answering  your  letter  of  March  17th,  I  would  say, 
with  all  possible  emphasis,  yes,  we  certainly  do  need  armed  preparedness, 
in  view  of  present  international  conditions.  We  need  a  lot  of  it  aad  we 
need  it  at  the  earliest  possible  moment. 

I  believe  that,  for  centuries  to  come,  war  must  be  regarded  as  an 
inevitable  part  of  human  existence,  and  there  is  only  one  way  in  which 
the  United  States  can  be  assured  against  the  horrors  of  armed  invasion, 
with  the  shame  of  disastrous  defeat  and  possible  dismemberment,  and 
that  IB  by  developing  the  strength  and  valiance  to  meet  all  possible  assail* 
ante  on  land  or  sea. 

Whether  we  like  it  or  not  we  are  a  great  world  power,  fated  to  become 
far  greater,  unless  we  throw  away  our  advantages;  we  must  either  accept 
the  average  world  standards,  which  call  for  military  preparedness,  or 
impose  new  standards  upon  a  world  that  concedes  no  rights  to  nations 
that  have  not  the  might  to  guard  and  enforce  those  rights. 

Why  should  we  Americans  hesitate  to  pay  the  trifling  cost  of  insur- 
ance against  war?  Trifling?  Yes.  The  annual  cost  of  providing  and 
maintaining  an  adequate  army  and  navy  would  be  far  less  than  we  spend 
every  year  on  tobacco  and  alcohol.  Less  than  fifty  cents  a  month  from 
every  citizen  would  be  sufficient.  That  amount,  wisely  expended,  would 
enormously  lessen  the  probability  of  war  and  would  *  allow  the  United 
States,  if  war  came,  to  face  its  enemies  with  absolute  serenity.  The 
Germans  are  willing  to  pay  the  cost  of  preparedness.  So  are  the  French, 
the  Italians,  the  Japanese,  the  Swiss,  the  Balkan  peoples,  the  Turks.  Do 
we  love  our  country  less  than  they  do?  Do  we  think  our  institutions, 
our  freedom,  less  worthy  than  theirs  of  being  guarded  for  posterity? 

Why  should  we  not  adopt  a  system  of  military  training  something 
like  the  one  that  has  given  such  excellent  results  in  Switzerland^  Why 
not  cease  to  depend  upon  our  absurd  little  standing  army,  which,  for  its 
strength  and  organization,  is  frightfully  expensive  and  absolutely  inade- 
quate, and  depend  instead  upon  a  citizenry  trained  and  accustomed  to 
arms,  witti  a  permanent  body  of  competent  officers,  at  least  50,000,  whose 
lives  would  be  spent  in  giving  one  year  military  training  to  the  young 
men  of  this  nation,  all  of  them,  say,  between  the  ages  of  eighteen  and 
twenty-t&ree,  so  that  these  young  men  could  serve  their  country  efficiently, 
if  the  need  arose?  Why  not  accept  the  fact  that  it  is  neither  courageous 
nor  democratic  for  us  to  depend  upon  hired  soldiers  to  defend  our  country? 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  15 

Does  any  one  doubt  that  a  year  of  such  military  training  would  be 
of  lasting  benefit  to  the  men  of  America?  Would  it  not  school  them  in 
much-needed  habits  of  discipline  and  self-control,  habits  which  must  be 
learned  sooner  or  later  if  a~man  is  to  succeed?  Would  not  the  open  air 
life,  the  physical  exercise,  the  regularity  of  hours  tend  to  improve  their 
health  and  make  them  better  citizens? 

Suppose  that  once  every  five  years  all  American  men  up  to  fifty  were 
required  to  go  into  military  camp  and  freshen  up  on  their  defense  duties 
for  twenty  or  thirty  days.  Would  that  do  them  any  harm?  On  the  con- 
trary, it  would  do  them  immense  good. 

And  even  if  war  never  came,  is  it  not  evident  that  America  would 
benefit  in  numberless  ways  by  such  a  development  of  the  general  man- 
hood spirit?  Who  can  say  how  much  of  Germany's  greatness  in  business 
and  commerce,  in  the  arts  and  sciences,  is  due  to  the  fact  that  all  her 
men,  through  military  training,  have  learned  precious  lessons  in  self- 
control  and  obedience? 

The  pacifists  tell  us  that  after  the  present  European  war  we  shall  have 
nothing  to  fear  for  many  years  from  exhausted  Europe,  but  let  us  not 
be  too  sure  of  that.  History  teaches  that  long  and  costly  wars  do  not 
necessarily  exhaust  a  nation  or  lessen  its  readiness  to  undertake  new 
wars.  On  the  contrary,  the  habit  of  fighting  leads  easily  to  more  fighting. 
The  Napoleonic  wars  lasted  over  twenty  years.  At  the  close  of  our  civil 
war  we  had  great  generals  and  a  formidable  army  of  veteran  soldiers  and 
would  have  been  willing  and  able  immediately  to  engage  in  a  fresh  war 
against  France  had  she  not  yielded  to  our  demand  and  withdrawn  Maxi- 
milian from  Mexico.  Bulgaria  recently  fought  two  wars  within  a  year, 
the  second  leaving  her  exhausted  and  prostrate;  yet  within  two  years  she 
was  able  to  enter  upon  a  third  war  stronger  than  ever. 

If  Germany  wins  in  the  present  great  conflict  she  may  quite  conceivably 
turn  to  America  for  the  vast  money  indemnity  that  she  will  be  unable  to 
exact  from  her  depleted  enemies  in  Europe;  and  if  Germany  loses  or  half 
loses  she  may  decide  to  retrieve  her  desperate  fortunes  in  this  tempting 
and  undefended  field.  With  her  African  empire  hopelessly  lost  to  her, 
where  more  naturally  than  to  facile  America  will  she  turn  for  her  coveted 
place  in  the  sun? 

And  if  not  Germany,  it  may  well  be  some  other  great  nation  that  will 
attack  us.  Perhaps  Great  Britain!  Especially  if  our  growing  merchant 
marine  threatens  her  commercial  supremacy  of  the  sea,  which  is  her  life. 
Perhaps  Japan!  whose  attack  on  Germany  in  1914  shows  plainly  that  she 
merely  awaits  favorable  opportunity  to  dispose  of  any  of  her  rivals  in  the 
Orient.  Let  us  bear  in  mind  that,  in  the  opinion  of  the  world's  greatest 
authorities,  we  Americans  are  today  totally  unprepared  to  defend  ourselves 
against  a  first-class  foreign  power. 

As  to  our  immediate  defense  requirements,  we  should  have  a  strong 
and  fully  manned  navy  with  forty-eight  dreadnoughts  and  battle  cruisers 
in  proportion.  We  should  have  scout  destroyers  and  sea-going  submarines 
in  numbers  sufficient  to  balance  the  capital  fleet.  We  should  have  an 
serial  fleet  second  to  none  in  the  world.  We  should  have  a  standing  army 
of  200,000  men  with  45,000  officers,  backed  by  a  national  force  of  citizens 
trained  in  arms  under  a  universal  and  obligatory  one-year  military  system. 
We  should  have,  finally,  adequate  munition  plants  in  various  parts  of  the 
country,  all  under  government  control  and  partly  subsidized  under  condi- 
tions assuring  ample  munitions  at  any  time,  but  absolutely  preventing 


16  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

private   monopolies   or   excessive   profits   in   the  munition  manufacturing 
business. 

This  would  be — and  God  grant  it  prove  to  be — America's  insurance 
against  future  wars  of  invasion,  against  alien  arrogance  and  injustice, 
against  a  foreign  flag  over  this  land. 

Wishing  you  all  success  in  your  patriotic  efforts  to  save  this  nation 
from  disaster,  I  am, 

Very  sincerely, 

(Signed)     CLEVELAND  MOFFETT. 

From    J.    B.    WALKER,    Editor-in-Chief,    Scientific    American,    Author 

"America  Fallen." 

233  Broadway,  New  York, 

March  20,  1916. 

My  dear  Mr.   Maxim: — Answering  your  favor  of  March   19th,  I  beg  to 
submit  the  following  answers  to  the  questions  therein  proposed: 

1.  In  view  of  the  present  state  of  armed  preparedness  of  other  nations, 
and  in  the  absence  of  an  international  tribunal  for  the  judicial  settlement 
of  disputes,  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  it  is  among  the  very  first  duties  of 
the  United  States  adequately  to  arm  itself  both  on  sea  and  land. 

2.  The  first  and  logical  line  of  defense  should  be  found  upon  the  high 
seas,  and  I  believe  that  in  the  upbuilding  of  our  navy  we  should  act  upon 
the  cardinal  principle  that  our  whole  fleet  should  be  sea-going  in  every 
unit,  of  the  largest  size,  and  the  widest  radius  of  action  compatible  with 
the  class  to  which  it  belongs. 

As  to  the  size  of  this  navy,  I  believe  it  should  always  stand  second 
in  strength  among  the  navies  of  the  world,  being  exceeded  only  by  that  of 
Great  Britain. 

Our  fleet  should  be  composed  of  battleships  whose  armament  and 
speed  should  always  be  maintained  abreast  of  contemporary  practice — 
and  preferably  ahead  of  that  practice.  Since  the  ultimate  issues  of  a  naval 
campaign  will  be  decided  in  favor  of  the  nation  having  the  heaviest  battle- 
ship line,  I  believe  that  the  bulk  of  the  appropriations  by  Congress  should 
be  put  into  capital  ships,  battleships  and  battle-cruisers,  the  ratio  for  the 
present  being  one  battle-cruiser  to  every  two  battleships. 

I  believe  that  our  navy  should  possess  a  fleet  of  thirty-five-knot  scouts 
in  the  ratio  of  one  scout  for  every  capital  ship;  that  we  should  possess  a 
fleet  of  twelve-hundred-ton,  thirty-five-knot  destroyers  in  the  ratio  of  four 
to  every  capital  ship;  and  that  we  should  possess  a  fleet  of  sea-going 
twelve-hundred-ton  submarines  of  not  less  than  twenty-knots'  surface  speed, 
in  the  ratio  of  one  to  every  capital  ship. 

With  the  fleet  as  above  indicated,  should  go,  of  course,  a  complete 
quota  of  auxiliaries — fuel,  ammunition,  provision  and  general  supply  ships, 
together  with  the  proper  ratio  of  "  mother "  ships,  tenders  and  other 
auxiliaries. 

In  addition  to  the  provision  of  government  gun,  armor  and  ammunition 
factories,  I  believe  that  the  interests  of  naval  defense  would  be  greatly 
enhanced  if  the  private  ship,  gun,  armor  and  shell  factories  were  mobilized 
for  defense,  and  if  they  were  provided  with  sufficient  work  in  peace  time 
to  enable  them  in  the  stress  of  war  to  bend  their  whole  energies  at  once 
to  the  supply  of  naval  war  material. 

As  regards  the  defenses  on  land,  I  believe  our  forces  should  consist 
of  a  regular  army  of  250,000  men,  recruited  under  a  six-year  enlistment 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  17 

(one  or  two  years  with  the  colors  and  the  balance  in  reserve)  so  that  in 
time  we  would  possess  a  trained  regular  reserve  of  500,000  men.  The 
National  Guard  should  be  taken  into  Federal  control,  without  pay,  and 
should  be  subjected  ta  army  drill,  discipline  and  methods  of  promotion. 
Back  of  these  forces  there  should  be  a  volunteer  army  of  250,000  men 
under  control  of  the  officers  of  the  regular  army.  There  should  be  a 
reserve  of  officers  created  of  not  less  than  50,000  men. 

As  soon  as  the  country  is  ready  for  it,  the  United  States  Government 
should  impose  universal  training  and  service. 

3.  The  United  States  should  put  itself  into  the  state  of  adequate 
armed  preparedness,  above  outlined,  without  the  loss  of  a  moment  of 
time,  and  with  the  understanding  that,  in  view  of  the  tremendous  emer- 
gency which  confronts  us,  the  question  of  "  expense "  should  be  the  last 
to  be  considered. 

The  above  has  been  rather  hastily  dictated,  but  I  think  that  it  will 
give  you  a  fair  idea  of  my  views  on  preparedness. 
Yours  very  faithfully, 

(Signed)     J.  BERNARD  WALKER. 

From  DR.  L.  H.  BAEKELAND,  Noted  Inventor  and  Scientist,  Member 
of  Naval  Consulting  Board  of  the  United  States. 

Yonkers,  N.  Y., 

March  20,  1916. 

Dear  Mr.  Maxim: — 1.  I  am  in  favor  of  armed  preparedness  for  our  pro- 
tection. 

2.  I  believe  in  an  excellent  navy,  second  only  to  that  of  England, 
and  in  a  regular  standing  army  of  200,000  men.     I  am  against  any  militia 
or  National  Guard  system,  unless  its  officers  be  professionally  trained  men. 

3.  I   am   against  any   system   of   preparedness   which   tries   to   raise 
funds  otherwise  than  by  direct  taxation,  preferably  a  rapidly  increasing 
tax  on  incomes,   so  that  the  burden  should  be  shifted  where  it  belongs, 
and  so  that  every  man  who  pays  taxes  should  realize  what  "  prepared- 
ness "  costs  him. 

Truly  yours, 

(Signed)     L.  H.  BAEKELAND. 

From    CHARLES   A.   MUNN,    President   Munn   &    Co.,    and   Editor    The 
Scientific  American. 

233  Broadway,  New  York, 

March  20,  1916. 

My  dear  Mr.  Maxim: — My  opinions  in  regard  to  the  necessity  for  national 
defense,  both  on  land  and  sea,  are  too  well  known  to  need  any  very  special 
comment.  As  you  are  aware,  the  Scientific  American  has  been  preaching 
the  doctrine  of  adequate  defense  for  a  great  number  of  years,  and  is  one 
of  the  first  publications  in  this  country,  if  not  the  first,  to  take  up  this 
problem. 

In  answer  to  your  queries: 

No.  1.     Yes. 

No.  2.  I  believe  that  the  Chamberlain  Bill  now  before  the  Senate 
is  a  fair  basis  for  the  degree  of  preparedness  necessary. 

No.  3.  I  think  we  have  already  lost  a  precious  year  and  a  half  in 
the  way  of  preparedness,  and  steps  should  be  taken  at  once  to  remedy 


18  ^  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

our  present  nakedness.    As  to  the  expense  necessary,  I  cannot  answer  such 
a  question  off  hand. 

Faithfully  yours, 

(Signed)     CHARLES  A.  MUNN. 

From   GENERAL  A.   R.   BUFFINGTON,   United   States   Army,   Retired, 
Ex-Chief  of  Ordnance. 

Madison,  New  Jersey, 

March  17,  1916. 

My  dear  Mr.  Maxim: — Yours  of  this  date  received  this  a.  m.,  and  here- 
with enclosed  I  send  you  my  answers  to  the  three  questions. 

Yours  faithfully, 

(Signed)     A.  R.  BUFFINGTON. 
Answers  to  Questions: 

1.  Yes,   adequate  preparedness,   particularly  of   the  Navy:    that  is, 
a  Navy  equipped  with  all  the  appliances  of  offensive  warfare  on  the  high 
seas  now  used  by  the  belligerents  in  the  present  European  War,  not  for 
offensive  purposes  but  for  defensive — offensive  protection. 

Defensive  preparedness  would  be  inadequate  for  defense  unless  the 
offensive  could  be  taken  at  any  moment  of  conflict  with  would-be  invaders 
of  the  United  States. 

2.  The     measures     of    preparedness     for    the    Navy — which     must 
necessarily  be  the  first  line  of  defense — are  stated  in  above  answer  to 
question  No.  1.     Respecting  those  for  an  adequate  Army,  it  matters  not 
whether  it  be  called  "  Continental  Army  "  or  "  Militia  "  composed  of  the 
National  Guards  of  the  States,  provided  the  appointment  of  its  officers, 
command  and  organization  of   it,  as   a  whole,   be  exclusively  under   the 
control  of  the  War  Department  both  in  times  of  peace  and  war:  in  short, 
the  adoption  of  the  most  advanced  project  advocated  by  Army  officers  who 
know   what  they  advocate   to   be  necessary  and  not  less  than   1,000,001 
men  all  told. 

3.  For  adequate  preparedness  of  both  Army  and  Navy,  time  is  the 
factor  that  must  control.     It  is  already  too  late  for  the  extent  of  pre- 
paredness  we   should  have,   and  for   what  we   can   have   not   a  moment 
should  be  lost  to  begin  it.     Compromises  of  any  kind  won't  do,  and  it 
should   be   begun    now   at   whatever   cost   of    energy   and    money    in   the 
use  of  both  existing  government  and  private  plants  and  facilities.     The 
preparedness  must  now  of  necessity  extend  over   several   years   and  the 
cost  of  it  would  be  no  more  than  an  insurance  for  National  protection, 
similar  to   life,  property,   burglary   and  marine  insurance,  and  the  cost 
for  police  protection  and  permanent  paid  fire  departments. 

Cut  off  the  "  Pork  Barrel "  ( local  patriotism )  and  substitute  National 
patriotism  for  it  and  reduce  "Politics"  to  a  zero  quantity  in  all  legis- 
lation. The  United  States  is  rich  enough  to  afford  it,  and  if  the  nation, 
as  a  whole,  must  live  less  expensively  to  do  it,  the  gain  in  national  vigor 
and  patriotism  cannot  be  estimated  in  dollars  and  cents. 

(Signed)    A.  R.  BUFFINGTON. 

From  REV.  DR.  CYRUS  TOWNSEND  BRADY,  Noted  Author. 

Yonkers,  New  York, 

March  17,  1916. 
Dear  Mr.  Maxim: — I  answer  your  three  questions  gladly: 

1.  Yes,  decidedly  so. 

2.  A  force  great  enough  to  cope  with  any  possible  expedition  that 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  19 

could  be  launched  against  us,  to  hold  it  in  check  long  enough  for  us  to 
mobilize  our  resources  and  render  available  the  vast  potential  energies 
which  we  should  be  already  organizing  to  meet  such  demands.  In  round 
numbers,  I  should  say  a  fleet  strong  enough  to  defend  the  sea-board 
against  any  European  or  Asiatic  country,  excepting  England,  and  a  regu- 
lar army  of  at  least  250,000  men.  Even  against  any  combination  of  non- 
English  speaking  people  such  a  force  would  make  it  exceedingly  difficult 
for  an  enemy  to  land  an  expedition  on  our  shores  or  to  maintain  it  there. 
And  such  a  force  would  give  us  time  to  rally  behind  it.  I  am  not  an 
expert  on  those  matters  and  if  the  suggested  numbers  are  not  great  enough 
I  would  cheerfully  advocate  their  increase. 

3.  We  should  commence  our  preparation  at  once  without  regard  to 
the  expense,  taking  care  to  use  our  income  to  the  best  advantage  and  with 
provident  care  and  without  reckless  waste,  and  the  money  should  be  raised 
by  taxes  or  duties,  not  by  loans  or  bonds.  We  must  not  mortgage  the 
future  to  defend  the  present. 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

(Signed)     CYRUS  TOWNSEND  BRADY. 

From  S.  STANWOOD  MENKEN,  President  National  Security  League. 

52  William  Street,  New  York. 

March  20,  1916. 

My  dear  Mr.  Maxim: — I  take  pleasure  in  saying  that  my  answer  to  the 
first  question  in  your  letter  of  March  17th  is  decidedly  "Yes." 

As  to  the  second,  my  answer  is  "  The  full  measure  of  Preparedness 
advocated  by  the  general  staff  of  the  Army  and  the  Navy  Board." 

As  to  the  third,  I  think  expense  in  the  matter  of  safety  to  America 
is  a  negligible  question  and  should  not  be  considered. 

The  whole  issue  may  be  summed  up  in  the  proposition  that  partial 
Preparedness  is  no  Preparedness,  and  that  the  greatness  of  the  United 
States  is  such  that  in  the  matter  of  national  safety,  cost  is  a  mere  inci- 
dent. 

Yours  very  truly, 

(Signed)     S.  STANWOOD  MENKEN. 

From  DR.  MILLER  REESE  HUTCHISON,  Inventor,  Chief  Engineer 
Edison  Laboratories,  Member  Naval  Consulting  Board  of  the  United 
States,  Personal  Representative  of  Thomas  A.  Edison. 

Orange,  New  Jersey, 

March  17,  1916. 
Dear  Mr.  Maxim: — No.  1.     Yes. 

No.  2.  Such  as  will  enable  us  to  prevent  invasion  by  any  existing 
nation. 

No.  3.  Immediately — and  at  such  expense  as  may  be  necessary  and 
adequate. 

Yours  sincerely, 

(Signed)     MILLER  REESE  HUTCHISON. 

From  DOROTHY  DIX,  Well-known  Author  and  Journalist. 

New  York  City, 

March  20,  1916. 

Dear  Mr.  Maxim: — In  reply  to  your  first  question,  I  should  say  "yes," 
unequivocally. 


20  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

To  my  mind,  the  idea  of  a  great  rich  nation  being  unprepared  to 
defend  itself  is  as  silly  as  the  idea  of  a  big  rich  jewelry  store  being  left 
with  all  its  treasures  spread  out  on  the  shelf,  and  the  doors  wide  open. 
All  of  success  in  life,  all  of  safety,  depends  upon  the  measure  of  our  pre- 
paredness to  meet  the  dangers  and  difficulties  we  must  encounter.  We 
fail  or  succeed  in  business,  or  in  our  professions,  according  to  the  meas- 
ure of  our  preparedness  for  our  enterprise.  We  live  or  die  according  to 
how  we  are  prepared  to  meet  strain  or  disease.  And  what  is  true  of  the 
individual  is  a  thousandfold  true  of  the  nation. 

I  think  that  we  need  armed  preparedness.  We  need  the  best  that 
intelligence  and  money  can  give  us.  And  we  need  it  now. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  history  of  German  efficiency  in  this  war,  and 
our  unpreparedness  for  the  present  difficulty  in  Mexico  should  settle  the 
question  of  national  preparedness  beyond  the  possibility  of  argument. 

Yours  sincerely, 

(Signed)     DOROTHY  Dix. 

From  CHARLES  BASKERVILLE,  Ph.  D.,  F.  C.  6.,  Professor  of  Chemistry, 
College  of  the  City  of  New  York. 

New  York, 
March  20,  1916. 
Dear  Mr.  Maxim: — Par.  1.     Yes. 

Par.  2.  Should  have  to  depend  upon  advice  of  experts  in  that  field 
to  arrive  at  any  conclusion  as  to  what  would  constitute  "  adequate." 

Par.  3.     Should  begin  at  once  and  spend  whatever  may  be  necessary. 
Par.  4.     I  am  adding  this:     That  of  equal  importance  is  industrial 
preparation  for  times  of  peace. 

Sincerely  yours, 

(Signed)     CHABLES  BASKEBVILLE. 

From  GEORGE  SYLVESTER  VIERECK,  Editor,  The  Fatherland. 

1123  Broadway,  New  York. 

March  18,  1916. 

Dear   Dr.   Maxim: — 1.     Preparedness,   like    efficiency,    should   not   be   de- 
batable.    I  cannot  conceive  how  anyone  can  be  opposed  to  either. 

2.  I  believe  that  we  need  a  navy  great  enough  to  protect  our  shores 
against  Great  Britain  on  the  Atlantic,  and  against  Japan  on  the  Pacific. 
There  is  no  need  of  a  large  army,  because  it  is  unlikely  that  the  soldiers 
of  Germany  will  ever  march  across  the  ocean.     The  same  is  true  of  the 
soldiers  of  Russia  and  Great  Britain.    I  think  we  have  little  to  fear  from 
an  invasion,  but  everything  from  a  blockade  and  from  the  bombardment  of 
our  coasts.     I  nevertheless  believe  that  our  army  should  be  considerably 
stronger  than   it  is.     The   inadequacy  of  our   present  military  status   is 
shown  by  the  Mexican  incident.     For  it  certainly  is  a  humiliating  specta- 
cle to  see  the  United  States  compelled  to  parley  with  Mexican  bandits,  and 
to  give  the  sanction  of  our  Government  to  the  invasion  of  our  country  for 
any  purpose  whatsoever  by  the  cut-throats  of  any  of  the  Mexican  factions. 

3.  I  have  already  indicated  my  answer  to  the  third  question  in  my 
reply  to  the  second.    We  must  have  a  navy  that  cannot  be  challenged  with 
impunity  by  Great  Britain  and  Japan  combined.     We  must  have  an  army 
at  least  five  times  its  present  strength.     But  this  is  not  sufficient.     We 
must  have  preparedness  and  efficiency  in  our  industries  and  in  our  rail- 
road systems  as  well  as  in  military  matters.     In  this  we  should  follow 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  21 

the  great  example  of  Germany.  Instead  of  being  Morganized,  let  us  be 
Organized. 

Sincerely  yours, 

(Signed)     GEORGE  SYLVESTEE  VIEEECK. 

From  BRIG.  GEN.  JAMES  N.  ALLISON,  U.  S.  A.,  Secretary  and  Editor, 
The  Military  Service  Institution  of  the  United  States. 

Governor's  Island,  N.  Y., 

March  21,  1916. 

My  dear  Mr.  Maxim: — Condensing  as  much  as  possible  my  reply  to  the 
three  questions  found  in  your  letter  of  March  18th,  the  following  is  sub- 
mitted for  your  consideration : 

In  reply  to  your  first  question,  it  appears  to  me  that  events  of  the  past 
two  weeks  along  the  Mexican  border  should  answer  this  question  to  convince 
the  most  pacific  of  pacifists,  if  indeed  anything  short  of  disaster  can  con- 
vince, of  which  I  am  in  some  doubt.  Surely  it  would  appear  that  a  great 
nation  found  powerless  to  follow  and  punish  a  marauding  band  of  500  until 
a  reluctant  Congress  shall  have  passed  an  emergency  measure  increasing 
the  national  army,  is  in  sore  need  of  something  by  way  of  armed  prepared- 
ness. In  a  broader  view,  the  months  since  July  of  1914  have  shown  beyond 
question  that  right  unsupported  by  might  is  like  a  law  presenting  no 
penalty,  and  sentimentally  regarded  just  so  long  as  no  temptation  offers 
towards  its  violation.  Selfish  and  unscrupulous  men  observe  and  obey  the 
law  only  because  the  penitentiary  looms  behind  it.  And  nations  are  exactly 
as  good  as  the  men  composing  them. 

In  reply  to  your  second  question:  We  need  a  navy  equal  in  power  and 
effectiveness  to  the  best,  an  army  ready  at  any  moment  to  throw  into  the 
field  five  complete  divisions  of  all  arms,  fully  equipped  and  with  reserve 
supplies  (munitions  and  field  equipment)  for  a  six  months'  campaign;  an 
organized  national  guard  (not  state  militia)  of  twenty  divisions  of  all  arms 
ready  to  take  the  field  in  ten  days,  armed,  equipped,  and  supplied  as  indi- 
cated for  the  regular  army.  Cannon,  shells,  and  small  arms  can  not  be 
manufactured  over  night. 

A  reserve  consisting  of  the  male  citizens  of  the  United  States  between 
eighteen  and  forty-five,  trained  to  a  degree  of  efficiency  equal  to  proper 
care  of  self  and  arms  in  the  field  in  all  seasons,  ability  to  send  a  rifle  bullet 
through  a  six-hundred-yard  target  with  reasonable  certainty,  and  a  working 
knowledge  of  the  school  of  the  soldier.  These  qualifications  to  be  indis- 
pensable to  the  right  of  suffrage,  which  should  be  awarded  as  a  high  privi- 
lege and  honor,  and  not  sown  broadcast  and  indiscriminately  as  to-day. 

In  reply  to  your  third  question:    At  the  earliest  possible  moment,  and 
without  regard  to  cost.     Better  two,  three,  or  five  billions,  if  necessary, 
for  defense,  than  double  the  amount  for  tribute. 
Very  sincerely  yours, 

(Signed)     JAMES  N.  ALLISON. 

From  Dr.  DAVID  JAYNE  HILL,  Member  Permanent  Administrative 
Council  of  Hague  Tribunal;  President  Advisory  Board,  American 
Defense  Society,  New  York. 

1745  Rhode  Island  Avenue,  Washington,  D.  C., 

March  20,  1916. 

Dear  Mr.  Maxim: — I  present  the  following  answers  to  the  three  questions 
asked  in  your  letter  of  March  19 : 


2*  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

1.  Unless  we  are  prepared  to  protect  our  coasts  and  frontiers  and  our 
citizens,  wherever  they  may  be,  we  fail  in  the  performance  of  a  constitu- 
tional guarantee  to  our  people. 

2.  We  require  at  least   an  immediately   available  army  of   200,000 
trained  men,  and  a  trained  reserve  of   seven  or  eight  hundred  thousand 
available  upon  short  notice.    The  navy  should  be  increased  and  kept  con* 
stantly  with  a  full  complement  of  men  and  ready  for  action. 

3.  We  need  this  degree  of  preparation  immediately. 

Very  truly  yours, 

(Signed)     DAVID  J.  HILL. 

From  REV.  DR.  MADISON  C.  PETERS,  Chairman  Educational  Committee, 
American  Peace  and  Arbitration  League. 

225  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York, 

March  18,  1916. 

Dear  Mr.  Maxim: — In  reply  to  your  questions  of  March  17th,  first,  we  do 
need  armed  preparedness.  I  did  not  think  so  two  years  ago.  I  am  sorry 
that  I  have  been  obliged  to  change  my  opinion. 

Second,  the  measure  of  preparedness  I  would  advocate — reasonable  ade* 
quacy;  but  in  view  of  present  conditions  wholly  unforeseen  a  few  yeara 
ago,  I  would  put  all  the  emphasis  on  adequacy,  and  I  would  leave  the 
adequacy  to  be  decided  by  men  who  know  something  about  the  subject,  and 
keep  it  out  of  the  hands  of  the  grafters  who  have  spent  millions  on  the 
army  and  the  navy  for  which  we  have  nothing  to  show. 

In  answer  to  your  third  question,  I  would  say  that  we  should  have 
preparedness  just  as  fast  as  we  can  get  it,  and  get  it  good  regardless  of 
expense,  only  put  preparedness  in  the  hands  of  business  men  and  not  inex- 
perienced ward  heelers. 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

(Signed)     MADISON  C.  PETERS. 

From  C.  S.  THOMPSON,  Chairman  Executive  Committee,  The  American 
Defense  Society,  New  York. 

303  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York., 

March  17,  1916. 

My  dear  Mr.  Maxim: — I  am  sending  herewith  the  answers  to  the  questions 
included  in  your  letter  of  March  17th. 

Ans.  1.  The  present  state  of  armed  preparedness  of  other  nations,  the 
absence  of  an  international  tribunal  for  the  judicial  settlement  of  disputes, 
and  the  absence  of  an  international  police  force  to  compel  international 
good  behavior  are  to  my  mind  but  three  reasons  for  the  armed  preparation 
of  the  United  States  of  America.  It  is  quite  apparent  that  our  civilization 
is  still  built  upon  force.  I  firmly  believe  the  only  thing  for  this  nation  to 
do  if  this  nation  believes  in  permanent  peace  is  to  arm  itself  to  the  teeth, 
and,  with  the  help  of  allied  nations,  if  need  be,  fight  for  permanent  inter- 
national peace,  and  then  maintain  an  international  police  force  to  keep  the 
international  peace  established. 

Ans.  2.  Half  measures  are  useless.  No  measure  of  preparedness  is 
adequate  unless  it  provides  for  universal  service  and  for  enough  materiel 
in  the  way  of  ships,  guns,  and  ammunition,  to  exceed  the  supplies  of  any 
other  one  nation. 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  23 

Ans.  3.  If  the  future  of  our  republic  depends  upon  our  armed  pre- 
paredness, I  think  steps  should  be  taken  at  once,  and  by  that  I  mean  to-day. 
I  should  take  the  matter  out  of  the  hands  of  Congress  and  place  it  in  the 
hands  of  the  real  doctors,  the  military  experts.  We  should  carry  out  their 
recommendations,  and  the  question  of  expense  should  not  be  considered  in 
the  way  of  limiting  our  preparations. 

To  all  those  who  are  still  in  doubt  upon  the  question,  I  recommend  a 
reading  of  "  Defenseless  America." 

With  best  wishes, 

Very  truly  yours, 

(Signed)     C.  S.  THOMPSON. 

From   Rev.   Dr.   S.   PARKES   C  ADMAN,   Pastor   Central   Congregational 
Church,  Brooklyn,  New  York. 

64  Jefferson  Avenue,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y., 

March  21,  1916. 

My  dear  Mr.  Maxim: — In  answer  to  your  first  question,  I  do  believe  in 
armed  preparedness.  In  answer  to  the  second  and  third  questions,  I  would 
leave  the  necessary  measures  to  those  who  are  experts  on  such  subjects, 
as  I  am  not. 

Cordially  yours, 

(Signed)     S.  PAEKES  CADMAN. 

From  Hon.  FRANK  B   WILLIS,  Governor  of  Ohio. 

Executive  Department,  Columbus,  Ohio, 

March  20,  1916. 

Dear  Sir: — Your  inquiry  received.  I  think  we  do  need  armed  preparedness 
for  our  protection  in  the  present  state  of  armed  preparedness  of  other 
nations,  in  the  absence  of  an  international  tribunal  for  the  judicial  settle- 
ment of  disputes.  I  think  that  our  navy  should  be  strengthened  very 
materially  and  that  the  National  Guard  organizations  of  the  country  should 
be  doubled  and  increased  in  efficiency  and  equipment  and  that  the  standing 
army  should  be  strengthened.  I  am  not  in  favor  of  a  "  continental  army." 

Yours  very  truly, 

(Signed)     FRANK  B.  WILLIS. 

From  Hon.  A.  P.  GARDNER,  United  States  Congressman,  Sixth  District 

of  Massachusetts. 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 
House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C., 

March  20,  1916. 

Dear  Mr.  Maxim: — I  beg  to  reply  to  your  letter  of  March  17,  1916,  as 
follows : 

I  think  that  we  ought  to  have  sufficient  naval  and  military  strength 
to  make  this  country  safe  against  attack  from  any  nation  on  earth,  in- 
cluding Great  Britain.  I  think  that  we  ought  to  have  sufficient  naval  and 
military  strength  to  maintain  the  Monroe  Doctrine  and  the  policy  of 
excluding  Chinese  and  Japanese  immigrants. 

Just  what  naval  and  military  strength  is  necessary  to  accomplish 
those  purposes  ought  to  be  left  to  the  decision  of  an  expert  national  toard 


34.  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

of  some  sort.  Meanwhile  until  such  a  board  is  created,  I  think  that  we 
ought  to  adopt  the  views  of  the  Army  War  College  and  the  General  Board 
of  the  Navy. 

We  ought  to  hasten  our  armament  to  the  utmost  of  the  country's 
capacity.  As  to  the  expense,  no  matter  how  large,  we  must  grin  and  bear 
it.  The  cost  should  not  be  counted. 

I  think  that  it  would  be  fantastic  to  attempt  to  arm  against  a  com- 
bination of  nations.  We  have  enough  to  do  to  legislate  about  probabilities 
and  reasonable  possibilities  without  going  into  the  realms  of  conceivabilities. 

Very  truly  yours, 

(Signed)     A.  P.  GARDNER. 

From  Professor  ARTHUR  T.  HADLEY,  President  Yale  University. 

New  Haven,  Connecticut, 

March  21,  1916. 

My  dear  Mr.  Maxim: — I  believe  that  America,  like  every  other  democracy, 
needs  to  exact  an  obligation  of  military  service  or  its  equivalent  from  all 
voters,  if  the  government  is  to  be  safe.  But  with  regard  to  the  armed 
preparedness  needed  under  existing  conditions,  or  adequate  for  existing 
conditions,  I  had  rather  not  attempt  to  give  answers  even  for  so  interest- 
ing a  symposium  as  yours  promises  to  be. 

Very  sincerely, 

(Signed)     ARTHUR  T.  HADLET. 

From  Dr.  J.  E.  HAUSMANN,  Secretary,  The  American  Legion. 

10  Bridge  Street,  New  York, 

March  21,  1916. 

My  dear  Mr.  Maxim: — In  reply  to  your  letter,  dated  March  17th,  I  wish 
to  answer  as  follows: 

1.  To  this  I  answer  emphatically  Yes. 

2.  To  know  the  degree  of  preparedness  which  would  be  adequate,  we 
must  know  the  degree  of  armament  of  other  first  class  powers.    Navy — we 
must  equal  any  first  class  power.    Army — we  should  have  a  standing  army 
of  at  least  250,000  mobile  troops  with  an  army  service  corps  capable  of 
making  these  troops  effective,  and  a  really  trained  Citizen  Soldiery  through 
universal  military  service  to  back  that  Army  when  necessary. 

3.  We  should  have  adequate  armed  preparedness  as  soon  as  possible, 
in  fact  we  should  have  it  now.     Had  we  started  at  the  beginning  of  this 
terrible  European  catastrophe  we  would  at  least  at  this  date  have  a  decent 
nucleus.    You  ask  what  expense — no  expense.    As  every  good  business  man 
insures  his  property  and  does  not  consider  that  insurance  an  expense,  but 
rather  an  asset,  so  should  the  United  States  insure  its  vast  resources  and 
the  lives  of  its  citizens. 

Sincerely  yours, 

(Signed)     J.  E.  HAUSMANN. 

From  Rev,  Dr.  JOHN  WESLEY  HILL,  General  Secretary  The  World's 

Court  League. 

Equitable  Building,  New  York, 

March  22,  1916. 
My  dear  Mr.  Maxim: — In  reply  to  yours  of  the  17th  I  beg  to  state: 

First:     In  my  judgment  we  need  the  most  adequate  national  defense 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  25 

in  the  absence  of  the  International  Tribunal  for  judicial  settlement  to 
which  you  refer. 

The  World's  Court  League,  of  which  I  am  General  Secretary,  is 
directing  a  propaganda  for  the  establishment  of  an  International  Tribunal, 
but  until  that  Tribunal  is  established  we  believe  national  defense  the  duty 
of  the  hour  and  stand  for  the  most  thorough  and  complete  preparation 
against  invasion  on  our  national  rights  or  life. 

Second:  As  to  the  measure  of  preparedness,  I  am  not  a  specialist.  1 
believe,  however,  that  our  army  should  be  greatly  enlarged  and  that  our 
navy  should  be  the  strongest  in  the  world. 

We  owe  such  preparedness,  not  only  to  ourselves,  but  to  the  whole 
world,  especially  the  smaller  nations  of  this  Western  Hemisphere  which 
look  to  us  for  protection  in  the  assertion  and  maintenance  of  their  rights. 

Third:  Believing  in  adequate  army  preparedness,  I  believe  we  should 
move  for  it  without  delay,  for,  "  one  of  these  days  is  none  of  these  days." 

Nestor  said  in  counseling  the  great  generals  in  their  attack  upon  Troy, 
"  the  secret  of  victory  is  in  getting  a  good  ready  "  and  the  sooner  we  get 
a  good  ready  the  sooner  we  will  be  prepared  for  our  world-wide  mission  of 
peace,  justice  and  brotherhood. 

As  to  the  cost  of  all  this,  I  know  not,  nor  would  I  consider  it.  The 
thing  paramount  is  preparedness.  The  cost  should  be  a  secondary  con- 
sideration. 

Finally:  I  am  glad  to  know  of  your  activities  in  this  cause.  True, 
you  are  advocating  preparedness  with  all  your  might,  but  upon  the  other 
hand  you  are  striving  for  something  beyond  preparedness,  namely  The 
World  Court  for  the  Adjudication  of  World  Disputes.  In  this  work  I  bid 
you  Godspeed. 

Sincerely  yours, 

(Signed)     JOHN  WESLEY  HILL. 

From  Hon.  FRANK  M.  BYRNE,  Governor  of  South  Dakota. 

Executive  Chambers, 

Pierre,  South  Dakota, 

March  20,  1916. 

My  dear  Sir: — In  answer  to  your  letter  of  the  17th  of  this  month,  I  have 
the  honor  to  state  as  follows: 

We  should  be  prepared  against  aggression,  against  the  possibility  of 
war,  for  defense  against  any  possible  attack,  and  to  uphold  our  rights. 
Such  preparation  should  be  strong  enough  to  be  effective,  and  it  should  be 
made  effective  at  the  earliest  possible  moment. 

Yours  sincerely 

(Signed)     FBANK  M.  BYRNE. 

From  DANIEL  FROHMAN. 

Lyceum  Theatre,  New  York, 

March  22,  1916. 

My  dear  Mr.  Maxim: — I  am  one  of  those  who  feels  firmly  convinced  that 
the  United  States  needs  at  once  to  adopt  a  sound,  sane,  practical  method 
for  preparedness  with  a  view  to  avoiding  war.  I  believe  in  the  mailed 
hand,  which  is  capable  of  extending  and  maintaining  friendship,  and  which 
can  at  the  same  time  be  raised  to  defend  its  honor;  and  I  think  that  the 


26  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

preparations  for  such  a  condition  should  be  adopted  by  instant  efforts  in 
the  way  that  our  statesmen  are  best  enabled  to  bring  about  that  condition. 
I  beg  to  remain, 

Very  truly  yours, 

(Signed)     DANIEL  FKOHMAN. 

From  MAJOR-GENERAL  LEONARD  WOOD,  U.  S.  Army,  Commanding 
Department  of  the  East. 

Governors  Island,  N.  Y., 

March  17,  1916. 

My  dear  Mr.  Maxim: — I  enclose  herewith  a  copy  of  my  hearing  before 
the  Senate  Military  Committee  which  expresses  my  opinion  in  detail  and 
with  entire  frankness  on  the  subject  of  the  amount  of  preparation  needed. 

Sincerely  yours, 

(Signed)     LEONABD  WOOD. 

Extracts  from  Statement  of  Major-General  Leonard  Wood  at  the  Hearing 
before  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  House  of  Representatives, 
January  24,  26  and  27,  1916: 

The  Chairman.  General  Wood,  the  committee  is  ready  to  hear  you  on  the 
general  subject  of  preparedness. 

Gen.  Wood.     Do  you  wish  me  to  make  a  general  statement? 

The  Chairman.     I  think  that  would  be  desirable. 

Gen.  Wood.  I  believe  that  we  need  a  very  material  increase  in  the 
strength  of  the  Mobile  Army,  the  Coast  Artillery,  and  the  Engineers,  with 
an  accompanying  increase  in  the  auxiliary  arms,  an  increase  proportionate 
to  whatever  increase  may  be  given  in  the  line. 

The  principal  shortages  today  are  limited  not  only  to  the  personnel, 
but  they  are  equally  alarming  in  the  materiel.  My  own  recommendations 
called  for  a  regular  establishment  of  approximately  220,000  men,  with 
proper  reserves  of  materiel  for  this  force,  and  also  a  reserve  of  enlisted 
men  equal  in  strength  to  the  regular  force.  They  also  called  for  a  reserve 
corps  of  officers  of  not  less  than  45,000,  for  which  we  have  available 
materiel  which  is  not  being  used. 

I  also  recommended  that  general  military  training  be  made  a  national 
policy.  I  do  not  believe  that  any  other  system  can  be  considered  as  other 
than  a  makeshift  and  a  stopgap,  a  source  not  of  safety,  but  of  delusion. 
When  the  critical  moment  comes  it  will  break  down,  as  it  has  broken 
down  in  every  war  in  which  we  have  been  engaged.  Any  attempt  to  depend 
upon  a  volunteer  system,  pure  and  simple,  admirable  as  is  the  volunteer 
spirit,  will  fail.  It  means  the  organization  for  war  after  war  is  upon  us 
and  the  transferring  of  the  burden  of  war  to  the  time  of  war,  than  which 
no  more  unwise  policy  can  be  conceived. 

Mr.  McKenzie.  General,  knowing  you  to  be  a  practical  military  man, 
I  want  to  ask  you  how  large  an  expeditionary  force,  in  your  judgment, 
could  be  landed  on  our  shores  within  six  months  after  hostilities  opened. 

Gen.  Wood.  A  million  or  a  million  and  one-half  men;  there  is  prac- 
tically no  limit  to  the  number. 

Mr.  McKenzie.  What  nation  could  land  that  many  men  on  our  shores 
in  six  months? 

Gen.  Wood.    Germany  or  England,  after  this  war  is  over. 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  •» 

Mr.  McKenzie.    In  six  months? 

Gen.  Wood.  Oh,  yes;  any  first-class  military  power,  well  prepared,  can 
land  250,000  men  on  our  shores  in  fifteen  days,  and  do  it  easily,  once 
they  secured  control  of  the  sea. 

Mr.  McKenzie.  Will  you  please  elaborate  on  that,  so  that  the  people 
of  the  country,  reading  your  testimony,  will  understand  how  that  can  be 
done  ? 

Gen.  Wood.     Our  Navy  is  easily  fourth  today  in  power. 

*******  ^ 

Mr.  McKenzie.  Right  on  that  point,  General,  do  you  think  it  is 
the  proper  thing  to  assume  that  our  Navy  could  be  driven  from  the  sea, 
such  as  it  is,  within  30  days  or  60  days,  and  that  an  expeditionary  force 
could  be  landed  on  our  shores? 

Gen.  Wood.  I  do  not  think  our  Navy  would  be  driven  from  the  sea 
until  they  had  done  all  possible.  I  think  many  would  be  found  at  the 
bottom  of  the  sea,  and  the  rest  bottled  up. 

Mr.  McKenzie.     You  mean  at  the  end  of  60  days? 

Gen.  Wood.  Within  that  time.  When  a  condition  demanding  war 
comes  about,  the  enemy  nation  which  is  going  to  strike  knows  when  and 
where  it  is  going  to  strike.  We  are  not  going  to  get  a  polite  warning 
saying  that  we  are  going  to  attack  you  at  such  a  time  and  such  a  place. 
It  will  come  as  quickly  as  the  action  of  Japan  against  Port  Arthur.  It 

is  just  such  an  attack  as  that  which  is  going  to  catch  us. 
******* 

Mr.  Greene.  Would  not  the  probable  intention  of  an  invader  be  to  go 
straight  to  the  locality  you  have  indicated  and  then,  say,  for  instance, 
occupy  that  territory  and  levy  tribute  on  the  rich  cities  in  that  locality? 
Would  he  not  be  more  likely  to  do  that  than  to  try  to  go  into  the  interior  ? 

Gen.  Wood.  He  would  probably  hold  New  York  and  Boston;  possibly 
the  entire  arms  and  munitions  area  from  Boston  to  Baltimore,  and  exact 
such  tribute  as  he  wanted;  then  take  whatever  action  might  be  necessary 
to  prevent  us  from  longer  asserting  the  Monroe  doctrine.  He  would  take 
anything  he  wanted.  It  would  be  just  a  question  of  how  much  he  wanted. 
If  we  should  be  driven  out  of  that  comparatively  small  area,  we  would 
go  back  practically  to  the  condition  of  prehistoric  man  so  far  as  arms  are 
concerned. 

A  great  many  of  the  supplies  that  we  need  in  case  of  war  come  from 
other  countries.  Take  nitrates,  for  instance.  All  our  nitrates  come  from 
Chili.  There  is  not  a  plant  of  importance  for  the  manufacture  of  synthetic 
nitrogen  in  this  country.  We  need  synthetic  nitrogen.  We  hare  to  have 
it  in  huge  quantities.  All  our  nitrates  come  from  oversea. 

From   REAR-ADMIRAL   JOSEPH    STRAUSS,   Chief   of   the   Bureau   of 
Ordnance,  United  States  Navy. 

Washington,  D.  C., 

March  22,  1916. 

My  dear  Mr.  Maxim: — In  reply  to  your  letter  of  the  17th  instant  I  beg 
to  state  that  I  do  believe  in  armed  preparedness  for  our  protection,  and 
I  think  the  measure  of  such  preparedness  is  best  set  forth  in  the  recom- 
mendation of  the  General  Board,  approved  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy. 
Very  sincerely  yours, 

(Signed)     J.  STRAUSS. 


28  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

From  HENRY  A.  WISE  WOOD,  Inventor,  Author,  Public  Speaker,  Chair- 
man of  the  Conference  Committee  on  Preparedness. 

25  Madison  Ave.,  New  York, 

March  23,  1916. 

My  dear  Mr.  Maxim: — I  am  in  receipt  of  yours  of  the  18th  and  hasten  to 
comply  with  the  request  contained  therein.  My  belief  may  be  expressed  as 
follows : 

1.  Until  the  foremost  Powers  shall  have  agreed  upon  a  body  of  inter- 
national law,  and  shall  have  created  an  international  court  having  full 
jurisdiction  over  every  cause  which  may  arise  between  nations,  and  until 
these  Powers  shall  have  merged  their  naval  and  military  establishments  in 
a  common  force  answerable  only  to  such  an  international  court,  the  United 
States,  having  to  rely  for  its  defense  upon  its  own  military  prowess,  must 
be  maintained  at  all  times  in  readiness  to  defend  itself  against  attack. 

2.  In  view  of  the  obligations  imposed  upon  us  in  Central  and  South 
America  and  in  Mexico  by  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  and  in  Central  America  by 
our  possession  of  the  Panama  Canal,  and  the  burdens  laid  upon  us  by 
our  Asiatic  exclusion  policy  and  the  necessity  we  are  under  of  preserving 
the  open  door  in  China,  we  must  maintain  such  a  force,  upon  the  Atlantic 
as  shall  make  us  thereon  the  second  naval  power,  and  upon  the  Pacific 
as  shall  make  us  thereon  the  first  naval  power. 

With  respect  to  our  land  forces  we  should  immediately  adopt  uni- 
versal military  training  and  service,  and  until  the  numbers  in  training 
and  service  are  sufficient  for  our  protection  we  should  continue  to  maintain 
as  at  present  an  employed  army  for  the  purpose.  The  National  Guard 
should  be  merged  in  the  civilian  army,  first  having  been  divested  of  its 
allegiance  to  and  control  by  the  individual  States,  and  in  its  stead  state 
constabularies  should  be  established. 

3.  As  we  have  entered  a  most  critical  period  of  international  read- 
justment, in  which  our  likely  part  is  wholly  obscure,  it  behooves  us  to 
trim  our  sails  and  prepare  to  care  for  ourselves  in  foul  weather  should 
it  come.     This  necessitates  quick  action  upon  a  wide  scale,  if  we  are  to 
neutralize  in  sufficient  measure  the  vast  naval  and  military  superiority 
now  possessed  by  the  other  Powers. 

To  achieve  this  in  naval  affairs  we  must  first  accept  the  principle 
that  in  the  last  analysis  a  nation's  naval  power  is  based  upon  its  ship- 
building capacity  and  it  wealth.  We  have  sufficient  wealth,  but  not  suffi- 
cient shipbuilding  capacity,  while  our  existing  naval  force  is  wholly  inade- 
quate, not  alone  to  afford  us  the  naval  rank  among  nations  above  indi- 
cated to  be  necessary  but  to  protect  either  coast  successfully  were  we 
attacked  by  any  one  of  four  other  naval  Powers.  This  deficiency  should 
be  met  promptly  by  the  immediate  authorization  of  every  unit  necessary 
to  give  us  proper  rank,  at  a  single  shipbuilding  operation;  by  providing 
the  shipbuilding  and  related  industries  with  the  incentive  to  expansion 
which  such  a  program  would  give;  by  sufficiently  enlarging  our  naval 
institutions  of  instruction,  and  by  authorizing  the  necessary  increase  in 
personnel. 

As  a  large  part  of  this  investment  would  represent  plant,  the  invest- 
ment should  largely  be  provided  for  by  the  sale  of  bonds,  retirable  annu- 
ally throughout  an  appropriate  period  of  years.  And  the  expenditure 
involved  in  such  retirements  should  be  written  off  as  a  manufacturer  writes 
off  depreciation  of  plant.  Cordially, 

(Signed)     HENEY  A.  WISE  WOOD. 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  29 

From   COLONEL   O.   B.   MITCHAM,    General    Ordnance   Officer,   Eastern 
Department,  Commanding  Officer,  New  York  Arsenal. 

Governors  Island,  New  York  Harbor,  New  York  City, 

March  24th,  1916. 

Dear  Mr.  Maxim: — Replying  to  the  inquiry  contained  in  your  letter  of 
March  19th,  1916,  I  take  pleasure  in  giving  you  my  opinion  as  requested. 
The  questions  asked  by  you  will  not  be  repeated  here,  but  will  be  taken 
up  in  the  order  in  which  they  are  mentioned  in  your  letter. 

1.  There  can  be  no  question  as  to  the  need  of  armed  preparedness 
in  our  country  for  our  protection.    The  present  conditions  in  Switzerland 
and  Holland,  with  war  on  the  borders  of  both  states,  show  the  advantages 
of  foresightedness  in  the  matter  of  military  preparation.     Although  these 
states  are  small  in  size,  they  have  relatively  large  armies;  the  neutrality 
of  neither  has  been  invaded  during  the  present  armed  struggle  in  Europe. 

2.  Our   navy   should   be   second   in   strength   only   to   that  of   Great 
Britain.      With    regard   to  our   army,    we   should   have    such    a    force   of 
regulars  and  of  reserves  that  at  least  one  million  men  could  be  put  into 
the  field  in  a  relatively  short  time  if  circumstances  should  require  armed 
resistance.     Recent  facts  have  shown  that  wars  in  the  future  will  not  be 
participated  in  by  a  number  of  men  only,  but  by  nations;  therefore,  some 
form  of  universal  military  service  should  be  enforced  ;n  our  country. 

3.  Your  inquiry  has  reference  as  to  how  soon  we  should  try  to  have 
armed  preparedness  in  the  United  States.    My  answer  is  that  this  should 
be  begun  at  once  and  be  carried  out  independently  of  all  questions  of 
expense.    The  latter  is  a  minor  matter  when  the  protection  of  one's  native 
land  is  at  stake. 

I  have  tried  to  give  you  above,  in  succinct  form,  my  views  of  the 
question  which  is  now  so  greatly  agitating  all  persons  in  our  country. 

Very  sincerely, 

(Signed)     O.  B.  MITCHAM, 


From  CAPTAIN  RICHMOND  P.  HOBSON,  received  through  courtesy  of 

Mrs.  Hobson. 

Tuxedo  Park,  New  York, 

March  18,  1916. 

My  dear  Mr.  Maxim: — I  am  sorry  to  say  that  Captain  Hobson  is  at  present 
off  on  a  trip  in  the  interests  of  National  Prohibition  and  will  not  get 
home  for  some  weeks.  I  am  therefore  forwarding  your  recent  letter  to 
him  in  Texas  and  hope  he  will  have  an  early  opportunity  of  answering  it. 
You  must  know  how  deep  is  his  interest  in  the  subject  of  National 
Defense.  I  am  taking  the  liberty  of  sending  under  separate  cover  one  of 
his  speeches  in  Congress,  the  last  one  on  the  subject  he  made  last  year, 
and  in  case  you  do  not  hear  from  him  in  the  next  week,  I  would  suggest 
that  you  quote  from  any  part  of  this  speech  that  you  see  fit  to  use  as 
you  suggest. 

Let  me   tell  you  that  we  have  your  wonderful   book,    "  Defenseless 
America,"  and  we  think  there  is  nothing  like  it! 
Yours  in  the  interests  of  a  great  Navy, 

(Signed)     GRIZELDA  HULL  HOBSOIC. 
(Mrs.  Richmond  P.  Hobson.) 


30  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

Extract  from  Speech  of  Hon.  Richmond  P.  Hobson  before  the  Houae  of 
Representatives,  February  5,  1915: 

"Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  lay  it  down,  and  it  cannot  be  disputed  success- 
fully, that  as  a  living  policy,  a  status  of  defense  for  this  Nation,  as  a 
permanent  policy,  we  cannot  safely  permit  any  great  military  nation  of 
Europe  that  has  a  great  standing  army  and  has  a  vast  merchant  marine 
supplying  transportation,  and  therefore  always  ready  to  have  what  is 
known  as  the  control  of  the  sea  between  its  shores  and  ours.  We  could 
not  strike  them  back  if  we  had  control  of  the  sea,  because  we  would  have 
no  Army,  and  the  fleet  alone  cannot  go  ashore,  but  if  they  have  control 
of  the  sea  they  can  strike  us  almost  instantly  without  any  chances  of 
resistance  on  our  part.  The  same  principle  applies  to  the  Pacific  Ocean. 
We  cannot  safely  permit  a  nation  in  Asia  that  is  a  great  military  nation, 
with  a  vast  standing  army  available  and  a  merchant  marine  ready  for 
transportation,  to  be  in  control  of  the  sea  in  that  ocean.  Now,  then, 
these  oceans  are  so  far  apart  that  we  cannot  permit  this  condition  to 
exist  in  either  ocean.  Therefore  a  single-fleet  Navy  will  not  answer. 
We  must  maintain  as  a  living  proposition  a  fleet  in  the  Pacific  Ocean 
superior  to  the  navy  of  Japan  and  a  fleet  in  the  Atlantic  Ocean  superior 
to  the  navy  of  Germany,  both,  at  the  same  time." 

From  HON.  EMANUEL  L.  PHILIPP,  Governor  of  Wisconsin. 

Executive  Chamber,  Madison,  Wis., 

March  23,  1916. 

Bear  Sir: — I  am  in  receipt  of  your  letter  of  March  17  containing  questions 
in  regard  to  my  view  of  national  preparedness.  As  to  whether  we  need 
"  any  armed  preparedness  for  our  protection  in  the  presence  of  armed 
preparedness  of  other  nations,"  I  take  it  for  granted  that  a  nation  should 
be  able  to  protect  itself  from  any  probable  invasion  of  its  territory  or 
its  rights.  But  as  to  laying  down  the  exact  measures  of  preparedness,  the 
cost,  and  the  time  in  which  it  should  or  could  be  done,  that  is  a  question 
upon  which  we  shall  have  to  take  the  best  adviee  of  our  military  authori- 
ties. It  is  not  for  the  civilian  to  answer  in  an  offhand  way. 

Ours,  of  course,  must  be  mainly  a  citizen  defense  so  far  as  land 
operations  are  concerned;  and  a  navy  that  is  not  formidable  is  of  little 
use.  In  deciding  details  legislators  should  carefully  weigh  the  suggestions 
of  military  experts  because  it  is  purely  a  military  question. 

Very  truly  yours, 

(Signed)     E.  L.  PHILIPP. 

From  HON.  ROLLAND  H.  SPAULDING,  Governor  of  New  Hampshire. 
State  of  New  Hampshire,  Executive  Department,  Concord,  N.  H., 

March  24,  1916. 

Dear  Sir: — Replying  to  your  letter  of  inquiry  of  March  17,  I  do  believe 
that  we  need  armed  preparedness  for  our  part  in  the  international  affairs 
of  the  future.  What  degree  of  preparedness  we  need,  what  measures 
should  be  taken  for  it  and  how  much  it  should  cost  are  questions  which 
I  am  not  qualified  to  pass  judgment  upon.  The  work  should  begin  at 
once,  I  think,  and  its  first  steps  should  be  to  build  up  our  navy  and 
eur  coast  defenses.  Then  we  should  proceed  to  put  firm  flesh  and 
jtrong  muscle  upon  our  army  skeleton. 

Yours  very  truly, 

(Signed)     ROLLAND  H.  SPAULDING. 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL.  DEFENSE  31 

From  HON.  GEORGE  A.  CARLSON,  Governor  of  Colorado. 

The  State  of  Colorado,  Executive  Chamber,  Denver, 

March  twenty- four,  Nineteen  Sixteen. 

My    dear   Mr.    Maxim: — Replying   to    your    letter    of    inquiry    of    March 
17th: 

1.  Yes. 

2.  I   believe   the   measures   of   preparedness    should   be   left   to   the 
military  experts  of  the  country. 

3.  As  soon  as  possible  and  at  any  expense  necessary. 

Sincerely  yours, 

(Signed)     GEORGE  A.  CARLSON. 

From  HON.  JOHN  B.  KENDRICK,  Governor  of  Wyoming. 
The  State  of  Wyoming,  Executive  Department,  Cheyenne, 

21  March  1916. 

My  dear  Sir: — I  have  your  letter  of  the  17th  instant  and  take  pleasure 
in  replying  to  your  inquiries  as  follows: 

First.  As  to  the  need  of  this  country  for  armed  preparedness  I 
am  fully  convinced  that  we  should  at  once  carry  out  the  program  sug- 
gested and  supported  by  President  Wilson. 

Second.  I  believe  that  this  program  should  embrace  increase  in 
both  the  army  and  the  navy,  should  include  government  establishments 
for  the  manufacture  of  munitions,  and  should  provide  for  an  adequate 
aeroplane  equipment. 

Third.  I  am  confident  that  this  program  of  preparedness  cannot 
be  initiated  any  too  soon.  In  the  present  chaotic  condition  of  world 
affairs  the  possibilities  of  our  being  involved  some  way  or  other  are 
great,  and  the  probabilities  of  an  avoidance  of  conflict  would  be  still 
greater  if  we  were  prepared.  As  to  the  expense,  I  hardly  feel  competent 
to  make  an  estimate  of  that  at  this  time. 

Yours  very  truly, 

(Signed)     JOHN  B.  KENDRICK. 

From  HON.  WOODBRIDGE  N.  FERRIS,  Governor  of  Michigan. 
State  of  Michigan,  Executive  Office,  Lansing, 

March  twenty-third,  1916. 

My  dear  Sir: — I   have  your   letter  of  March   seventeenth   in  which  you 
ask  three  questions. 

My  answer  to  the  first  question  is  that  the  United  States  in  the 
absence  of  an  "  international  tribunal  for  the  settlement  of  disputes," 
and  in  the  absence  of  "  an  armed  police  force  to  compel  international 
good  behavior,"  does  need  adequate  protection. 

Your  second  question  I  cannot  answer.  Military  experts  who  are 
not  deeply  interested  in  the  manufacture  of  munitions  of  war  ought 
to  be  able  to  answer  this  question.  When  I  want  advice  on  a  subject 
of  which  I  know  little,  I  ask  an  expert.  Then  I  ask  another  expert, 
and  so  on  down  the  line,  because  I  find  that  experts  are  like  the  ma- 
jority of  human  beings,  subject  to  prejudice,  and  the  other  weaknesses 
that  human  nature  possesses.  After  all,  they  constitute  the  best  source 
for  advice  and  plans.  I  am  not  in  favor,  however,  of  accepting  the 
standard  set  by  other  nations.  Our  preparedness  should  be  with  refer- 
ence to  our  peculiar  situation  and  our  peculiar  needs. 


33  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

In  answer  to  your  third  question,  I  would  say  that  we  should 
make  our  armed  preparedness  immediately,  observing  the  caution  that 
I  have  hinted  at  in  my  previous  paragraph.  It  would  be  unfortunate 
if  the  United  States  were  to  go  to  the  extreme  of  preparedness  and 
burden  the  nation  with  a  debt  that  it  would  take  centuries  to  pay. 
Beyond  a  shadow  of  a  doubt,  the  nations  of  the  world  will  recover  from 
the  present  acute  attack  of  insanity.  With  best  wishes,  I  am 

Cordially  yours, 

(Signed)     WOODBBIDGE  N.  FEBBIS. 

From  HON.  WILLIAM  C.  McDONALD,  Governor  of  New  Mexico. 

State  of  New  Mexico,  Santa  F6, 

March  22,  1916. 

Dear  Sir: — I  have  your  letter  of  March  17th,  and  in  reply  will  say  that 
in  a  general  way  I  am  in  favor  of  the  right  sort  of  preparedness  by  the 
United  States  for  defending  our  rights  as  a  nation  against  any  undue 
interference  or  attempt  at  aggression. 

1st.  While  preparedness  will  not  prevent  war  altogether  it  means 
protection  and  under  some  circumstances  might  be  the  cause  of  preventing 
war  if  we  were  not  in  a  position  to  protect  ourselves. 

2nd.  I  was  really  in  favor  of  the  plan  presented  by  Secretary  Gar- 
rison rather  than  the  bill  which  is  now  before  congress,  as  I  believe  that 
control  by  the  federal  government  would  be  more  effective  and  that  our 
forces  could  be  used  to  better  advantage  at  any  time  they  might  be 
needed  if  they  were  completely  and  absolutely  under  the  control  of  the 
federal  government.  I  do  not  believe  that  a  large  standing  army  is  really 
necessary  but  do  believe  in  a.  large  body  of  reserves  that  might  be 
available  in  case  of  an  emergency. 

3rd.  Since  I  have  reached  the  conclusion  that  preparedness  Is 
necessary,  I  believe  it  is  necessary  now  and  that  immediate  steps  should 
be  taken  for  the  purpose  of  putting  this  country  in  such  a  position  that 
it  would  be  able  in  case  of  necessity  to  defend  itself  against  any  nation 
of  the  world. 

Yours  very  truly, 

(Signed)     W.  C.  McDoNAU). 

From  REAR- ADMIRAL  W.  W.  KIMBALL,  U.  S.  N.,  Retired. 

1757  Q  Street,  Washington,  D.  C., 

March  28,  1916. 

My  dear  Mr.  Maxim: — Referring  to  your  letter  of  March  18,  1916,  forwarded 
to  me  from  Maine,  I  will  answer  your  questions  in  regard  to  national 
preparedness  against  war,  as  best  I  may. 

1.  Most  assuredly  we  need  armed  preparedness  if  we  propose  to 
maintain  either  our  national  rights  or  our  national  existence,  the  latter 
directly  and  intimately  depending  upon  the  former. 

Until  nations  and  men  become  very,  very  different  from  what  they  now 
are  and  from  what  they  have  been  from  the  dawn  of  history,  the  temptation 
to  use  force  against  a  rich  and  helpless  country  like  ours  cannot  and  will 
not  be  resisted  by  strong  and  efficient  nations  that  have  everything  to  gain 
and  nothing  to  lose  in  bringing  armed  force  to  bear  against  us. 

Perhaps  more  especially  do  we  need  armed  preparedness  to  resist  a 
possible  attempt  at  enforcing  the  findings  of  an  international  tribunal  fo:^ 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  33 

the  judicial  settlement  of  disputes  by  an  armed  international  police  force, 
should  such  a  tribunal  ever  exist. 

While  the  probability  of  the  coming  of  such  stupendous  evils  as  a 
practical  international  tribunal  and  a  practically  powerful  international 
armed  police  is  slight,  we  should  remember  that  the  Holy  Alliance  was 
prevented  from  bringing  these  very  evils  upon  the  world  by  the  facts  that 
the  program  of  the  Alliance  interfered  with  British  trade  and  that,  there- 
fore, the  British  fleet  interfered  with  the  program  of  the  Alliance. 

Our  own  ridiculous  failure  in  attempting,  in  the  Washington  Con- 
ference, a  little  international  tribunal  for  central  American  countries,  is 
a  small  but  cheerful  indication  that  the  danger  of  a  real  and  practicable 
world-wide  international  tribunal  is  not  great. 

Should  such  a  tribunal  exist  there  would  no  longer  be  any  trouble  and 
fuss  about  preparedness  against  war  by  the  United  States  of  America, 
because  there  would  then  no  longer  be  any  United  States  of  America. 

2.  We,    the   people,    all   know   what   should   be   the   answer   to   this 
question.    We  all  know  that  there  is  but  one  way  to  adequate  preparedness 
against  war  and  that  that  way  lies  through  universal  conscription. 

But  since  we  have  neither  the  pluck  nor  the  patriotism  nor  the  economic 
common-sense  to  face  the  facts,  we  like  to  indulge  ourselves  in  silly 
twaddle  about  "  citizenry  trained  to  arms,"  which  means  universal  con- 
scription if  it  means  anything,  and  to  try  to  pretend  to  ourselves  that  we 
might  depend  upon  our  National  Guard — which,  whatever  else  it  may  be,  is 
not  National  and  cannot  guard  the  nation  against  any  danger. 

We,  the  people,  all  know  that  the  personnel  of  the  least  possible  force 
that  could  be  considered  an  adequate  preparation  against  war  would 
consist  of  three  men  from  every  thousand  inhabitants  in  the  first  line  of 
eea  and  shore  forces;  nine  men  from  every  thousand  inhabitants  in  the 
second  line;  and  twelve  men  from  every  thousand  inhabitants  in  the  third 
line;  all  the  rest  of  the  men  of  the  country  of  military  age  to  be  organized 
in  the  reserves,  military,  industrial  and  administrative. 

Arms,  munitions  and  equipment  for  the  first  three  lines  should  be 
available  on  mobilization,  with  reserve  stores  for  the  reserves. 

3.  We  should  begin  to  try  to  get  it  tomorrow  morning,  early,  since 
we   cannot  possibly  be  prepared  against  war  within  fifteen  years   if  we 
begin  our  preparations  tomorrow  and  work  for  them  earnestly  and  con- 
tinuously.    There  is  a  bare  possibility  that  if  we  begin  our  preparations 
now  we  may  not  be  too  late. 

The  expense  in  dollars  from  the  National  Treasury  should  be  that 
sufficient  to  pay  the  professional  first  line  men  and  to  furnish  all  the 
necessary  war  tools  for  all  the  personnel. 

The  expense  in  time  and  industry  would  be  measured  by  the  time 
given  by  all  the  individuals  for  the  defense  of  their  country's  rights. 

After  all,  is  it  not  "  all  leather  and  prunello "  to  answer  your  three 
questions  ? 

We,  the  people,  all  know  the  correct  answers  and  we,  the  people,  will 
continue  to  shirk  facing  the  facts  brought  out  by  these  questions  as  we 
of  the  present  and  passing  generations,  our  forbears  for  the  last  hundred 
and  twenty-five  years  and  our  truly  representative  legislative  and  executive 
servants  have  always  shirked  facing  any  facts  bearing  upon  real  prepared- 
ness against  war. 

For  nearly  a  century,  or,  more  exactly,  ever  since  the  Canning  Doctrine 
was  promulgated  by  Monroe,  we  have  depended  for  the  protection  of  our 


34  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

international  rights  upon  the  goodness  of  the  Good  Lord  in  combination 
with  the  power  of  the  British  fleet. 

All  present  indications  point  to  our  continuing  our  dependence  upon 
that  same  combination. 

Faithfully  yours, 

(Signed)     WM.  W.  KIMBALL. 

From  HON.  EMMET  D.  BOYLE,  Governor  of  Nevada. 

Executive  Chamber,  Carson  City, 

March  22,  1916. 

My  dear  Mr.  Maxim: — I  am  in  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the  17th  instant 
requesting  an  expression  of  opinion  upon  the  subject  of  national  defense. 
Replying  to  your  inquiries  in  order,  I  give  as  my  opinion: 

1.  That   we    do    need    armed    preparedness    for   our   protection    and 
probably  will  continue  to  need  such  preparedness  for  many  years  to  come. 

2.  I  regret  my  inability  to  comment  intelligently  regarding  the  size 
of  the  army  which  the  United  States  should  have.     I  do  believe,  however, 
that  none  of  the  schemes  yet  proposed  in  Congress  provide  for  adequate 
force. 

3.  We  need  armed  preparedness  at  once  and  should  procure  it  prac- 
tically at  any  cost.  Very  truly  yours, 

(Signed)     EMMET  D.  BOYLE. 

From  THOMAS  ROBINS,  Secretary  of  the  Naval  Consulting  Board  of  the 

United  States. 

13  Park  Row,  New  York, 

March  30,  191ff. 

My  dear  Mr.  Maxim: — 1.  Unless  we  quickly  prepare  for  defense,  our 
learned  President  will  be  in  a  position  to  add  the  final  chapter  to  his 
excellent  history  of  the  United  States. 

2.  a.     Universal  military  service. 

6.     A  Navy  that  will  rank  a  good  second  in  the  navies  of  the  world. 
c.     An  alliance  with  England  and  France. 

3.  As  fast  as  the  necessary  money  can  be  provided  without  stressing 
the  country's  financial  resources  beyond  the  elastic  limit.    In  the  meantime, 
no    Federal   monies   to   be   appropriated    for    public   buildings,    rivers    or 
harbors.  Very  truly  yours, 

(Signed)     THOMAS  ROBINS. 

From  REAR-ADMIRAL  BRADLEY  A.  FISKE,  U.  S.  N. 

Stoneleigh  Court,  Washington,  D.  C., 

Mar.  31,  1916. 

My  dear  Sir: — Thank  you  for  your  letter  of  Mar.  27,  which  did  not  reach 
me  until  today. 

1.  My  answer  to  your  first  question  is  Yes. 

2.  My  answer  to  your  second  question  is,  A  fleet  on  each  coast  equal 
to  the  fleet  of  any  nation  on  that  side  of  the  United  States  with  whom 
it  is  reasonably  possible  that  we  may  get  into  war  within  the  next  ten 
years. 

3.  As  soon  as  possible,  and  at  the  expense  necessary  to  attain  it. 

Sincerely  yours, 

(Signed)     BBADLET  A.  FISKE. 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  35 

From  DAVID  BISPHAM,  Noted  Singer. 

The  Royalton,  44  West  44th  St.,  New  York, 

April  1,  1916. 

Dear  Mr.  Maxim: — In  reply  to  your  letter,  I  may  say  in  general  that  I 
am  decidedly  of  the  opinion  that  as  a  nation  we  stand  in  the  greatest  need 
of  armed  preparedness  for  our  protection  against  foes  within  our  borders, 
at  the  present  moment,  and  enemies  from  without  who  may,  at  any  time, 
loom  menacingly  upon  our  horizon. 

What  measures  of  preparedness  would  be  adequate,  or  at  what  expense, 
I  am  not  able  to  say,  but  that  we  should  prepare  individually  and  col- 
lectively, and  set  about  doing  so  at  once,  I  am  absolutely  sure. 

Faithfully  yours, 

(Signed)     DAVID  BISPHAM. 

From  HAMILTON  HOLT,  Author  and  Lecturer  on  International  Peace; 
Editor,  The  Independent. 

119  West  40th  St.,  New  York, 

March  31,  1916. 

My  dear  Mr.  Maxim: — Your  letter  of  March  17th  I  find  on  my  desk  after 
returning  from  my  Western  lecture  trip,  where  I  spoke  for  four  weeks  on 
the  League  to  Enforce  Peace. 

In  response  to  your  questions,  I  wish  to  say: 

1.  We  do  need  armed  preparedness  at  the  present  moment. 

2.  I  should  increase  our  naval  and  military  forces  about  the  same  as 
suggested  by  the  President  of  the  United  States. 

3.  We  should  have  it  as  soon  as  we  can,  but  I  think  that  with  proper 
efficiency  methods  introduced  into  our  army  and  navy,  and  the  useless  posts 
and  yards  cut  down,  etc.,  we  probably  could  save  nearly  a  hundred  million 
dollars  a  year,  which  is  the  extra  amount  asked  for  by  the  President  in 
order    to    carry  out   his   program.     Therefore   I   believe   we    could   carry 
through  this  new  program  if  we  wanted  to  on  only  a  little  more  than  the 
present  expenditure. 

Sincerely  yours, 

(Signed)     HAMILTON  HOLT. 

From  CAPTAIN  LAURANCE  ANGEL,  Distinguished  Graduate  of  Army 
School  of  the  Line  and  Graduate  of  Army  Staff  College. 

New  York, 
March  25,  1916. 

My  dear  Mr.  Maxim: — During  the  period  of  my  service  as  an  officer  of 
the  United  States  Army,  I  have  had  exceptional*  opportunities  of  learning 
what  are  our  real  needs  for  national  defense  and  how  actual  is  our  danger 
at  the  present  time  because  of  our  weakness. 

The  military  history  of  nations  proves  without  exception  that  a  nation 
both  rich  and  weak  is  certain  to  be  attacked  and  plundered  by  nations  poor 
and  strong. 

When  the  present  European  \Var  is  over,  we  shall  be  at  once  the 
richest  and  the  weakest  of  all  the  great  nations,  and  our  danger  will  be 
exactly  proportionate  to  the  enticement  of  our  wealth  and  the  lack  of 
fear  that  may  be  entertained  by  our  enemies  for  our  measures  for  defense. 

The  amount  of  our  preparedness  should  be  determined  absolutely  by 
its  sufficiency.  We  need  enough,  and  no  more,  amply  to  insure  us  against 


36  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

molestation.  We  need  such  measures  more  than  any  other  nation,  and  we 
can  better  afford  to  have  them  than  any  other  nation,  and  there  is  not 
a  moment  to  be  lost. 

We  should  not  be  in  the  least  deterred  by  any  expenditure  which  th6 
necessities  of  the  case  make  it  evident  should  be  incurred,  because  our 
national  existence  is  at  stake. 

Very  sincerely  yours, 

(Signed)     LAUBANCE  ANGEL. 

From  COLONEL  ROBERT  M.  THOMPSON,  President  Navy  League  of 
the  United  States. 

San  Francisco,  Cal., 

March  28,  1916. 

My  dear  Mr.  Maxim: — Your  favor  of  March  18th,  forwarded  to  me  from 
Washington,  has  just  arrived,  and  by  return  mail  I  answer  your  questions. 

To  your  first  question  I  answer  yes. 

To  your  second  question  I  answer  that  we  should  have  a  Navy  adequate 
to  hold  the  sea  against  the  power  of  any  military  nation  that  might 
possibly  invade  us.  I  do  not  consider  England  such  a  nation.  It  follows 
that  Germany  on  the  Atlantic  and  Japan  on  the  Pacific  have  set  the 
standard  to  which  we  must  measure  up.  Our  present  Navy  is  ample  to 
give  us  control  of  the  Pacific,  if  all  of  it  is  put  into  the  Pacific.  No  one 
knows  what  the  navy  of  Germany  is  today,  nor  what  it  will  be  by  the 
end  of  the  war. 

If  the  English  and  German  fleets  come  together,  both  of  them  will 
be  very  seriously  diminished,  if  not  entirely  destroyed.  In  my  opinion, 
after  the  close  of  the  war,  when  the  European  nations  are  once  settled 
down,  the  building  of  battleships  will  be  stopped  for  some  time,  as  all  the 
nations  will  be  heavily  strained  to  pay  the  interest  on  their  war 
obligations. 

It  seems  to  me,  therefore,  that  we  might  look  forward  to  additional 
building  to  make  our  Navy  equal  to  the  German  Navy  at  the  outbreak  of 
the  war,  that  is,  22  dreadnaughts  and  4  battle  cruisers.  Of  these  8  are 
already  authorized,  so  14  dreadnaughts  and  4  battle  cruisers,  with  the 
proper  percentage  of  destroyers,  submarines,  aeroplanes  and  auxiliaries 
necessary  to  make  a  properly  balanced  fleet  should  be  built  as  rapidly  as 
possible. 

This  can  be  done  by  an  issue  of  $500,000,000  4%  Bonds,  which  if  sold 
as  required  in  payment  of  the  vessels  as  constructed,  would  average  due 
in  about  twenty- two  years  from  the  date  of  authorization.  If  $14,000,000 
a  year  were  paid  into  a  sinking  fund,  it  would  provide  for  the  payment 
of  the  bonds  at  maturity,  and  $20,000,000  a  year  would  provide  for  the 
payment  of  the  interest  on  these  bonds — making  a  total  cost  of 
$34,000,000  a  year. 

Today  our  annual  appropriations  include  about  $65,000,000  for  con- 
struction. The  proceeds  of  the  bonds  would  replace  this,  and  after 
covering  the  interest  and  sinking  fund  of  $34,000,000,  there  would  be 
$31,000,000  left  to  apply  to  the  extra  expenses  of  more  officers  and  men, 
more  fuel,  more  munitions,  etc. 

If  we  make  large  expenditures  for  submarines  and  aeroplanes,  we 
might  require  an  additional  $15,000,000  a  year,  and  if  the  question  can 
be  approached  without  prejudice,  and  with  businesslike  common  sense,  we 
can  have  in  three  years  what  ought  to  be  a  sufficient  navy,  without  any 
material  extra  taxation. 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  37 

If  we  were  going  to  reorganize  the  army,  I  would  take  every  boy 
when  he  reached  the  age  of  eighteen,  who  was  not  disqualified  for  physical 
reasons  or  because  his  labor  was  necessary  for  the  support  of  some  person 
dependent  upon  him,  and  train  him  to  be  a  soldier.  This  ought  to  mean 
somewhere  from  600,000  to  700,000  boys  called  to  the  colors.  Somebody 
today  is  educating,  feeding  and  clothing  these  boys.  The  Government  could 
do  this  without  any  increased  economic  cost. 

In  connection  with  the  army  drill,  if  a  system  of  schools  were  main- 
tained at  which  the  boys  could  receive  the  same  intellectual  training  that 
they  would  receive  at  home  (and  Annapolis  and  West  Point  demonstrate 
that  this  can  be  done),  there  will  be  no  economic  cost  through  either 
increased  consumption  or  lack  of  preparation  for  future  citizenship.  On 
the  contrary,  such  training  and  teaching  would  undoubtedly  elevate  the 
average  of  citizenship. 

In  answer  to  your  third  question,  we  should  begin  at  once  and  com- 
plete our  preparation  as  rapidly  as  we  possibly  can. 

My  foregoing  answers  show  that  in  my  opinion  this  can  be  done 
without  any  material  increase  in  our  economic  cost.  The  increase  in  the 
annual  expenditures  of  the  United  States  due  to  their  assuming  the 
expense  of  educating  and  maintaining  the  boys  would,  of  course,  be  large, 
but  if  we  have  any  business  in  us,  and  if  we  can  keep  out  politics  and 
grafting,  it  will  be,  after  all,  merely  a  question  of  bookkeeping.  As  to  the 
limit  of  expense,  I  am  a  "  peace-at-any-price  "  man.  I  am  so  thoroughly 
impressed  with  the  horrors  of  war  that  I  would  keep  them  out  of  this 
country  at  any  cost  measured  in  money. 

Very  cordially  yours, 

(Signed)     ROBEBT  M.  THOMPSON. 


From  HON.  JAMES  B.  McCREARY,  Ex-Governor  of  Kentucky. 

Lexington,  Ky., 

March  22,  1916. 
Dear  Sir: — Your' letter  of  March  17,  1916,  was  duly  received.  .    .    . 

The  first  thing  that  the  people  of  every  nation  have  a  right  to  demand 
of  the  nation's  rulers  is  protection  from  danger  at  home  and  abroad. 
George  Washington  said,  "  If  we  desire  to  avoid  insult  we  must  be  able 
to  repel  it."  If  we  desire  to  preserve  peace,  one  of  the  most  powerful 
instruments  of  our  prosperity,  it  must  be  known  that  we  are  at  all  times 
prepared  for  war. 

Respectfully, 

(Signed)     JAMES  B.  MCCEEABY. 


From  POULTNEY  BIGELOW,  Noted  Author. 

Bigelow  Homestead,  Maiden  on  Hudson,  New  York, 

March  22,  1916. 

Dear  Sir: — You  and  I  agree  on  essentials.  Every  American  should  be  a 
soldier  before  acquiring  the  right  to  vote.  That  is  a  self-evident  proposi- 
tion and  has  been  recognized  as  such  from  the  beginning  of  things. 

Yours, 

(Signed)     POULTNEY  BIGELOW. 


38  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

From  FATHER  JOHN  T.  PROUT,  Pastor  Church  of  St.  John  the  Martyr, 

New  York. 

250  East  72nd  St.,  New  York, 

March  20,  1916. 

Dear  Mr.  Maxim: — Ans.  No.  I.  Taking  human  nature  as  it  is,  we  will  need 
armed  preparedness  the  same  as  we  need  our  fire  department  and  our 
police  force. 

II.  Our  preparedness  should  be  with  a  view  to  our  two  only  possible 
adversaries,  Japan  and  Germany. 

III.  Preparedness  should  commence  at  once,  and  the  defense  should 
be  actually  and  unmistakably  adequate,  irrespective  of  expense. 

Yours  very  truly, 

(Signed)     JOHN  T.  PROUT. 

From  MRS.  GEORGE  E.  PICKETT,  Widow  of  General  Pickett,  who  led 
the  famous  charge  at  Gettysburg. 

The  Ontario,  Washington,  D.  C., 

March  21,  1916. 
My  dear  Mr.  Maxim: — Your  letter  of  the  17th  is  received  this  morning. 

The  symposium  upon  national  defense  will  be  very  interesting  and  I 
shall  be  glad  to  see  it.  Of  course  I  believe  in  preparation  for  all  the  events 
and  conditions  that  may  exist,  preparation  for  life,  for  death,  for  peace, 
for  war.  We  have  recently  had  frightful  object  lessons  in  the  fate  of  small 
nations  with  no  opportunity  for  preparing  for  defense,  and  in  the  inade- 
quacy of  larger  ones  who  shut  their  eyes  to  the  necessity  of  preparation, 
under  the  impression  that  if  for  any  reason  they  do  not  see  a  thing  it  is 
positive  proof  that  the  thing  does  not  exist. 

The  details  of  preparation,  however,  I  must  leave  for  the  politicians  to 
quarrel  over,  and  trust  the  result  to  that  beneficent  Power  which  Mr. 
Evarts  said  "  takes  care  of  children,  fools  and  the  United  States,"  hoping 
that  in  some  miraculous  way  the  Republic  may  be  kept  alive  despite  her 
guides  and  guardians.  I  could  not  even  venture  a  conjecture  as  to  the 
proper  or  probable  expense  of  an  effort  at  protection,  but  however  high  it 
might  be  I  think  that  the  destruction  of  our  Great  Republic  would  cost 
more. 

With  love  for  you  both,  earnest  and  sincere, 

(Signed)     MOTHER  PICKETT. 

From  MRS.  JOHN  A.  LOGAN,  Widow  of  the  famous  General  Logan  of  the 

Civil  War. 

Washington,  D.  C., 

March  31,  1916. 

My  dear  Mr.  Maxim: — In  reply  to  your  questions,  allow  me  to  say  that 
it  should  be  apparent  to  every  citizen  of  the  United  States  that  armed 
preparedness  is  indispensable  for  the  protection  of  the  American  Nation  and 
its  institutions  and  for  the  perpetuation  of  this  great  Republic. 

It  has  been  demonstrated  that  either  through  maladministration  or 
unpreparedness  the  United  States  has  failed  to  protect  American  citizens 
in  the  Republic  of  Mexico  or  those  living  in  the  State  of  Texas,  just  across 
an  imaginary  geographical  boundary  line. 

Promptness  and  unity  of  action  is  absolutely  necessary  to  meet  the 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  39 

emergency  occasioned  by  the  serious  situation  in  Mexico,  where  a  few 
hundred  revolutionists  are  holding  the  United  States  at  bay  while  our 
citizens  are  being  murdered. 

Sincerely  yours, 

(Signed)     MBS.  JQHN  A.  LOGAN. 

From  CAPTAIN  JACK  CRAWFORD,  the  Poet  Scout,  Former  Chief  of 
Scouts,  United  States  Army. 

745  Thrall  Ave.,  Woodhaven,  L.  L,  N.  Y., 

March  31,   1916. 

Dear  Mr.  Maxim: — In  response  to  the  request  in  your  letter  of  the  17th 
instant,  my  answer  is,  because  we  have  honor,  love  freedom,  and  have 
homes  and  loved  ones,  and  because  most  of  the  world  today  is  on  the 
warpath,  and  because  the  present  war  has  demonstrated  that  modern 
and  enlightened  nations  are  capable  of  waging  war  as  cruelly,  mercilessly 
and  with  purposes  as  predatory  as  ever,  we  do  need  to  defend  our  price- 
less possessions. 

We  need  adequate  defense,  and  we  need  to  get  it  in  the  shortest 
possible  time,  without  any  consideration  whatsoever  of  expense. 

When  our  lives,  our  property,  the  sanctity  of  our  homes,  the  honor 
of  our  mothers,  sisters,  daughters,  wives,  are  at  stake,  it  is  not  a  question 
which  can  be  weighed  with  dollars. 

I  want  to  say  to  you,  Mr.  Maxim,  and  to  all  who  may  read  this, 
that  in  my  opinion  your  work  for  national  defense  is  the  most  unselfish, 
the  most  generous,  the  most  able,  and  altogether  the  most  important,  and 
has  had  and  is  having  a  greater  influence  to  rouse  this  country  to  its 
needs  than  the  work  of  any  other  man  or  group  of  men  who  have  devoted 
themselves  to  this  noble  cause. 

Sincerely  yours, 

(Signed)     J.  W.  CRAWFORD, 
"Capt.  Jack." 

Self-preservation  always  first — 

A  law  we  dare  not  disobey. 

Our  motto  is,  In  God  we  Trust, 

But  build  a  Navy  while  ice  pray. 

"God  bless  you,"  William  Jennings  said, 

When  Wilson's  cabinet  he  rent, 

Then  stumped  where  angels  dare  not  tread — 

God  help  you,  was  what  Billy  meant. 

"  CAPT.  JACK." 

From  REAR-ADMIRAL  F.  F.  FLETCHER,  U.  S.  N.,  Commander  of  the 
Atlantic  Fleet. 

U.  S.  S.  Wyoming,  Flagship,  Guantanamo  Bay,  Cuba, 

April  2,  1916. 

Sir:— Referring  to  your  letter  of  March  17,  1916,  containing  certain 
questions  on  the  subject  of  preparedness,  I  am  of  the  opinion  that: 

1.  A  nation  should  be  prepared  to  defend  its  policies  and  its  inter- 
ests; and  that  a  nation  of  the  wealth  of  the  United  States  should  be 
as  well  able  to  provide  for  the  cost  of  preparedness  as  are  other  nations. 


40  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

2.  Preparedness,  to  be  adequate,  should  be  such  as  to  permit  defense 
against   all   those   likely   to   threaten   our   interests,   or   to   challenge   our 
policies. 

3.  If  adequate  preparedness  is  decided  upon  it  is  logical  to  obtain 
this  preparedness  at  the  earliest  practicable  moment. 

Very  sincerely, 

( Signed )     F.  F.  FLETCHER. 

From  HON.  GEORGE  VON  LENGERKE  MEYER,  Former  Secretary  of  the 

Navy. 

Aiken,  S.  C., 
April  1st,  1916. 

Dear  Sir: — In  answer  to  your  letter  dated  the  21st  of  March,  it  is  very 
important  that  we  should  have  immediate  armed  preparedness  to  insure 
our  Coast  from  attack  and  safeguard  the  interests  of  our  people.  Millions 
spent  at  once  would  be  worth  more  than  billions  after  the  War  has  started. 
We  should  not  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  a  weak  threat  of  a  well-prepared 
nation  is  worth  far  more  than  a  strong  threat  of  a  weak  nation.  The  navy 
should  be  the  strong  right  arm  of  the  Government,  and  with  an  adequate 
fleet,  well  balanced  and  thoroughly  prepared,  no  troops  will  be  landed  in 
this  country  for  foreign  invasion  until  the  fleet  is  destroyed.  Therefore, 
our  fleet  should  be  increased  by  the  building  of  four  battle-ships  and  four 
battle  cruisers  at  once  and  a  building  program  of  auxiliaries  such  as  the 
General  Board  has  recommended  in  the  report  which  was  originally 
smothered  by  Secretary  Daniels.  We  should  increase  the  enlistment  of 
blue  jackets  by  25,000  and  have  a  National  Reserve  of  the  same  number. 
We  should  have  an  army  of  250,000  regulars  and  compulsory  service  based 
on  the  Swiss  system,  all  of  which  should  be  authorized  by  the  present 
Congress,  and  should  they  fail  to  do  so,  the  people  should  make  themselves 
heard  in  the  November  election. 

Faithfully  yours, 

(Signed)     G.  v.  L.  MEYEB. 


LETTERS 

FEOM  EMINENT  LEADERS  OF  AMEEICAN  THOUGHT 
WHO    DO    NOT    BELIEVE     IN     NATIONAL 
DEFENSE— AEMED  PEEPAEEDNESS 
AGAINST  WAE. 

From  REV.  DR.  CHARLES  E.  JEFFERSON,  Pastor  Broadway  Taber- 
nacle Church,  and  a  leading  writer  and  speaker  against  National 
Defense  by  force  of  Arms. 

March  18,  1916. 

My   dear  Mr.    Maxim: — In  my   judgment   this   is   not  the   time  for  the 
United   States    to    make    any    substantial    addition    to    its    military    and 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  41 

naval  equipment.  My  reason  for  thinking  this  is  that  we  have  something 
far  more  difficult  and  important  on  our  hands.  The  theory  of  military 
preparedness  as  a  guarantee  of  international  justice  or  peace  has  been 
exploded.  The  philosophy  of  Armed  Peace  has  been  shot  to  pieces  before 
our  eyes.  Military  preparedness  as  a  world  policy  has  been  found  to 
mean  war.  Nations  cannot  run  races  in  naval  tonnage  and  howitzers 
without  fighting.  Governments  cannot  pile  up  explosives  without  sooner 
or  later  a  world-shattering  explosion. 

We  must  try  a  new  way.  The  world  must  be  organized.  There  must 
be  an  international  tribunal,  and  an  international  police  force.  To  get 
these  the  United  States  ought  to  lead  the  way.  She  will  come  to  her  task 
with  greater  influence  if  she  shows  her  faith  by  her  works.  If  she  has 
faith  in  the  reasonableness  of  men  and  of  nations,  let  her  throw  her  whole 
strength  just  now  into  the  elaboration  of  a  plan  of  world  organization. 
Let  all  our  greatest  men  set  to  work  upon  this.  Let  the  President  and 
Congress  give  it  their  earnest  attention.  Let  large  appropriations  be 
voted  to  carry  it  through.  Let  our  government  say  boldly  that  it  believes 
the  time  has  arrived  for  a  league  of  nations  to  safeguard  the  peace  of  the 
world.  No  additional  enginery  of  war  should  be  provided  by  us  until  this 
European  war  is  over.  We  shall  know  better  then  how  to  take  hold  of 
the  enormous  world  problem  which  the  war  has  created.  We  shall  have 
a  clearer  brain,  and  a  more  quiet  heart  and  a  more  sensitive  conscience 
if  we  come  into  the  council  chamber  of  the  nations  without  a  big  club. 
Some  men  say,  Let  us  build  up  a  mighty  army  and  navy,  and  then  work 
for  the  international  tribunal.  That  method  has  been  tried  in  Europe, 
and  it  does  not  work.  Big  armaments  block  the  way  to  tribunals  of  rea- 
son. Let  us  try  a  different  method.  Let  us  work  with  all  our  might  for 
at  least  five  years  to  bring  about  a  world  court  and  a  world  police  force, 
and  if  any  nation  refuses  to  cooperate  in  the  great  enterprise,  let  the 
United  States  and  the  other  nations  then  take  whatever  precautions  may 
be  necessary  to  curb  the  power  of  the  recalcitrant  nation  for  mischief. 

Sincerely  yours, 

(Signed)     CHABLES  E.  JEFFERSON. 


From  REV.  DR.  JOHN  HAYNES  HOLMES,  Pastor,  Church  of  the  Mes- 
siah, New  York  City,  and  a  leading  writer  and  speaker  against 
National  Defense  by  force  of  Arms. 

March  17,  1916. 

Dear  Sir: — I  thank  you  for  the  honor  which  you  do  me  in  asking  me 
to  give  answer  to  your  questions  on  the  subject  of  preparedness.  I  send 
you,  herewith,  a  statement.  You  may  feel  free  to  use  it  in  your  sym- 
posium, on  the  single  condition  that  you  print  it  complete.  May  I  also 
add  the  request  that  you  permit  me  to  see  your  symposium  when  it  is 
published. 

Believe  me,  Very  sincerely  yours, 

(Signed)     JOHN  HAYNES  HOLMES. 
Statement : 

Your  questions  involve  two  problems — (1)  that  of  the  specific  prob- 
lem of  military  policy  now  before  Congress;  and  (2)  that  of  the  general 
philosophy  of  "  preparedness "  as  a  means  of  national  security. 

As  regards  the  first  question,  let  me  say  that  I  am  unreservedly  op- 


42  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

posed  to  the  increase  of  our  army  by  a  single  soldier,  our  navy  by  a  single 
torpedo-boat,  our  equipment  by  a  single  rifle,  at  this  moment  of  world- 
disaster.  Such  increase  is  unnecessary,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  pres- 
ent conflict  is  speedily  bringing  exhaustion  to  all  great  powers  of  the 
earth;  it  is  unwise,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  it  would  inevitably  be  inter- 
preted as  a  hostile  act  and  therefore  be  made  the  source  of  endless  sus- 
picions and  hatreds  by  peoples  seeking  sympathy  and  not  fresh  menace 
in  their  distress;  and  it  is  immoral,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  an  armed 
or  arming  America  is  the  one  thing  best  calculated  to  defeat  the  prospect 
of  immediate  or  progressive  disarmament  by  all  the  belligerent  nations  at 
the  close  of  the  Great  War.  Even  though  "  preparedness  "  were  necessary 
for  our  security,  I  should  still  oppose  it  on  the  plea  that,  at  such  an  hour 
as  this,  we  must  venture  the  hazard  of  insecurity,  for  the  sake  of  the 
larger  good  of  humanity.  In  place  of  "  preparedness,"  I  venture  to  plead 
for  a  rigid  investigation  of  the  expenditures  of  moneys  appropriated  for 
armament  in  recent  years,  which,  if  honestly  and  effectively  used,  should 
have  given  us  an  army  and  navy  more  than  adequate  for  even  extreme 
conditions  of  national  defense. 

As  regards  the  second  question,  let  me  say  that  I  regard  the  whole 
philosophy  of  "  preparedness "  as  essentially  futile  and  vicious.  The 
present  War  is  proof  of  the  fact  that  "  preparedness  "  means  war  and  not 
peace,  insecurity  and  not  security.  Europe  has  tried  to  the  full  the  policy 
of  "  armed  preparedness  for  ....  protection  in  the  present  state  of 
armed  preparedness  of  other  nations,  in  the  absence  of  an  international 
tribunal  for  the  judicial  settlement  of  disputes,  and  in  the  absence  of  an 
international  armed  police  force" — and  the  Great  War  is  the  perfect 
demonstration  of  its  failure.  For  America  now  to  adopt  this  policy,  would 
be  only  to  make  inevitable  a  like  calamity  for  herself  in  the  not  distant 
future.  With  preparation  for  peace,  as  with  the  resumption  of  specie 
payments,  "  the  way  to  begin,  is  to  begin."  I  therefore  plead  for  America 
at  this  moment  to  disarm  as  a  pledge  of  her  faith  in  the  good  will  of  other 
nations,  to  appropriate  the  millions  now  contemplated  for  war  expendi- 
tures to  works  of  beneficent  and  constructive  relief  in  Europe  as  evidence 
of  her  own  good  will,  and  to  organize  at  once  the  high  and  intricate  task 
of  statesmanship  involved  in  bringing  order  to  a  disordered  world.  For 
this  achievement,  the  United  States,  by  reason  of  her  geographical  security, 
her  immunity  from  international  jealousies  and  suspicions,  her  mingled 
population,  and  her  democratic  ideals,  is  the  appointed  nation;  and  now, 
by  reason  of  the  Great  War's  hourly  demonstration  of  the  hideous  futility 
of  arms,  is  the  appointed  hour. 

(Signed)     JOHN  HAYNES  HOLMES. 

From  DR.  DAVID  STARR  JORDAN,  Chancellor,  Stanford  University, 
California,  Chief  Director  World  Peace  Foundation,  and  most  noted 
of  the  opponents  of  Armed  Preparedness  in  America. 

March  22,  1916. 

My  dear  Sir: — In  answer  to  your  kind  letter  of  March  17,  1916,  let  me 
say: 

1.  In  view  of  the  disorganized  condition  of  Europe  and  in  view  of 
the  overreaching  of  nations  in  desperate  straits,  it  seems  to  me  proper 
that  we  should  immediately  look  to  our  defenses  in  case  we  should 
become  suddenly  entangled  in  the  conflict.  It  seems  to  me  that  such 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  43 

danger  as  may  exist,  whether  from  our  own  hysteria,  from  foreign 
plotters  in  our  country,  or  from  disregard  of  neutral  rights  on  the  part 
of  other  countries  is  immediate,  a  present  and  not  a  future  matter. 
After  the  war  ends  I  do  not  think  it  possible  that  any  nation  would  have 
the  desire  or  the  power  to  attack  us.  "  A  nation  is  like  a  bee,  as  it 
stings,  it  dies."  The  experience  of  other  great  wars  allows  us  to  expect 
a  strong  desire  in  every  quarter  that  such  a  catastrophe  shall  not  happen 
again.  The  religious  wars  which  had  raged  for  centuries  were  closed 
forever  by  the  Treaty  of  Minister.  Everybody  was  sick  and  tired  of  the 
ordeal  of  battle  in  religion.  The  treaty  which  closes  this  war  is  likely 
to  do  away  with  the  principle  of  unbridled  sovereignty  and  of  the 
"Anarchy  of  Armament." 

2.  I  have   no   special   knowledge   as   to   degrees   of   "preparedness." 
The  more  officers   trained  for   war,   the  stronger   will   be  their  influence 
towards  war.     This  statement  does  not  apply  to  all  cases,  but  the  world 
over  the  determination  of  the  military  groups  is  the  strongest  war  incen- 
tive.    A  great   navy   is   less   to   be   feared   than   a  great   army,   but   all 
needless  expenditure  is  a  source  of  corruption.     It  seems  vitally  necessary 
that  the  nations  of  Europe  should  reduce  their  armament,  and  perhaps 
place  it  at  the   service  of  an   International    Commission   of   some   kind. 
There  is  danger  that  a  great  navy  on  our  part  would  operate  against 
this  result. 

3.  The  arguments  for  the  necessity  of  a  greater  navy  do  not  seem 
convincing.     Certain   additions   or   reforms  are  doubtless   reasonable,   but 
rather  than  a  more  powerful  naval  defense  we  need  a  national  disposition 
to  remove  points  of  differences  with  other  nations,  and  especially  we  need 
some   provision,   judicial   or   constitutional,   which    shall   deter   any   indi- 
vidual state  from  legislation  likely  to  have  international  results.     I  am 
opposed  to  military  preparedness  on  any  grand  scale  as  inherently  dan- 
gerous.   I  am  opposed  to  any  increase  of  national  debt  for  such  purposes, 
and  I  approve  of  the  Shafroth  amendment  to  the  general  appropriation 
bill  as  follows: 

That  if  at  any  time  before  the  appropriations  authorized 
by  this  Act  shall  have  been  contracted  for,  there  shall  have 
been  established,  with  the  co-operation  of  the  United  States 
of  America,  an  international  tribunal  or  tribunals  com- 
petent to  secure  peaceful  determinations  of  all  international 
disputes,  and  i?/hich  shall  render  unnecessary  the  maintenance 
of  competitive  armaments,  then  and  in  that  case  such  naval 
expenditures  as  may  be  inconsistent  with  the  engagements 
made  in  the  establishment  of  such  tribunal  or  tribunals  shall 
be  suspended,  if  so  ordered  by  the  President  of  the  United 
States. 

The  main  question  does  not  concern  the  number  of  ships  we  shall 
build,  but  the  general  attitude  of  the  nation  towards  the  problems  of 
unchecked  sovereignty  and  the  aggressive  use  of  force  and  intimidation 
in  diplomacy  as  opposed  to  "  international  good  behavior "  and  an  inter- 
national tribunal  for  the  adjustment  of  differences. 

Very  truly  yours, 

(Signed)     DAYID  STABB  JOBDAN. 


44,  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

From  THE  ANTI-"  PREPAREDNESS "  COMMITTEE. 

Headquarters,  Munsey  Building,  Washington,  D.  C.~ 

March  25,  1916. 

My  dear  Mr.  Maxim: — We  are  enclosing  you  manifesto  of  our  Com- 
mittee in  which  Miss  Addams  concurs. 

Very  sincerely  yours, 

ANTI-"  PREPAREDNESS  "  COMMITTEE. 

THE  ANTI-"  PREPAREDNESS  "  COMMITTEE. 

Headquarters,  Munsey  Building,  Washington,  D.  C. 

We  are  a  committee  of  American  citizens  formed  to  protest  against  the 
attempt  to  stampede  this  nation  into  a  dangerous  program  of  military 
and  naval  expansion.  We  believe  that  no  danger  of  invasion  threatens 
this  country  and  that  there  is  no  excuse  for  hasty,  ill-considered  action. 
We  protest  against  the  effort  being  made  to  divert  the  public  mind  from 
those  preparations  for  world  peace  based  on  international  agreement  which 
it  might  be  our  country's  privilege  to  initiate  at  the  close  of  this  War. 
And  we  protest  no  less  against  the  effort  being  made  to  divert  public 
funds,  sorely  needed  in  constructive  programs  for  national  health  and 
well-being,  into  the  manufacture  of  engines  of  death. 

We  are  against  the  "  preparedness "  program,  so  called,  because  it 
is  unnecessary,  because  it  endangers  our  most  precious  institutions,  and 
because  it  is  contrary  to  all  that  is  best  in  our  national  traditions. 

Believing  that  this  statement  represents  the  thoughtful  conclusions 
of  a  large  number  of  patriotic  Americans,  we  urge  them  to  support  us 
in  the  following  program: 

GO  SLOW  ON  PREPAREDNESS.  Our  immediate  purpose  is  to 
prevent  any  unusual  expenditure  for  armament  during  the  present  session 
of  Congress. 

STOP  THE  WASTE  ON  PREPAREDNESS.  We  demand  public 
investigation  of  our  present  huge  war  budget  so  that  every  dollar  now 
spent  for  the  Army  and  Navy  may  bring  100  per  cent  of  efficiency. 

WHO  WANTS  PREPAREDNESS?  We  stand  for  a  Congressional 
investigation  of  the  sources  of  the  demand  for  a  large  increase  in  Army 
and  Navy  appropriations. 

TAKING  THE  PROFIT  OUT  OF  PREPAREDNESS.  We  stand  for 
taking  all  possibility  of  private  profit  out  of  armament  manufacture. 

WHO  IS  TO  PAY  FOR  PREPAREDNESS?  We  hold  that  any 
increased  expense  for  armament  should  be  met  by  income  and  inheritance 
taxes,  and  not  by  taxes  which  place  additional  burden  on  the  poor. 

A  NEW  FOREIGN  POLICY  INSTEAD  OF  PREPAREDNESS.  We 
hold  with  the  President  that  the  time  has  come  to  develop  the  Monroe* 
doctrine,  with  its  inherent  dangers  and  difficulties,  into  a  real  Pan- 
American  union,  and  therefore  urge  that  a  fifth  Pan-American  conference 
be  called  early  in  1916,  and  that  our  delegates  be  instructed  to  recommend 
a  federation  of  the  twenty-one  American  republics  in  the  interests  of 
peace  and  democracy. 

THE  "YELLOW  PERIL"  AND  PREPAREDNESS.  Since  the  ques- 
tions at  issue  between  America  and  the  Orient  are  serious  and  complex, 
we  urge,  as  a  rational  approach  to  their  solution,  the  appointment  of 
an  expert  commission,  representing  Japan,  China  and  the  United  States 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  45 

to  study  these  questions  and  make  recommendations  to  the  various  coun- 
tries   involved,   after   considering   all    interests   concerned,   local,   national 
and  international. 
Signed : 

LILLIAN  D.  WALD,  Chairman. 
PAUL  U.  KELLOGG,  Vice-Chairman. 
L.  HOLLINGSWOBTH  WOOD,  Treasurer. 
CRYSTAL  EASTMAN,  Secretary. 
CHARLES  T.  HALLINAN,  Editorial  Director. 
JANE  ADD  AM  s,  JOHN  HAYNES  HOLMES, 

ALLAN  L.  BENSON,  MBS.  FLORENCE  KELLEY, 

SOPHONISBA  BRECKENBIDGE,  ALICE  LEWISOHN, 

MAX  EASTMAN,  FREDERICK  LYNCH, 

MRS.  GLENDOWEB  EVANS,  JAMES  P.  WARBASSE, 

ZONA  GALE,  STEPHEN  S.  WISE. 

This  is  a  National  Crisis.  If  you  are  with  us  wire  or  write  to  your 
Congressman  to  Go  Slow  on  "  Preparedness." 

From  ELBERT  HUBBARD  II. 

East  Aurora,  Erie  Co.,  N.  Y. 

March  23,  1916. 

My  dear  Mr.  Maxim: — I  received  your  letter  a  few  days  ago,  asking  my 
opinion  about  the  preparedness  proposition.  Frankly,  Mr.  Maxim,  I  cannot 
understand  how  a  man  in  my  position,  having  nothing  but  some  general 
ideas  and  never  having  made  a  study  of  military  or  naval  situation,  could 
in  any  way  make  any  kind  of  an  adequate  estimate  of  what  is  the  right 
thing  to  do. 

Undoubtedly  I  would  be  just  as  quick  to  join  the  army  myself  as 
anyone  in  case  of  the  invasion  of  our  land  by  a  foreign  army;  but  when 
it  comes  to  a  question  of  telling  just  how  far  this  country  should  prepare 
against  such  a  possibility,  I  must  beg  to  be  excused.  Really,  I  do  not 
know. 

I  do  not  believe  in  war,  anyway,  and  I  am  strongly  opposed  to  methods 
that  would  precipitate  a  war.  My  viewpoint,  and  I  might  say  the  view- 
point of  The  Roycrofters,  is  expressed  plainly  and  broadly  in  the  two 
sheets  I  am  enclosing.  I  do  not  think  it  answers  the  proposition  the  way 
you  would  like  to  have  it  answered,  but — them's  our  sentiments! 

With  kindest  regards  and  best  wishes, 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

(Signed)     ELBERT  HUBBABD  II. 

The  Enclosure  Referred  to  in  Mr.  Hubbard's  Letter: 
ANSWERING  MR.  HUDSON  MAXIM'S  THREE  QUESTIONS. 

A — I  believe  that  war  both  offensively  and  defensively  has  successfully 
demonstrated  itself  a  FAILURE.  Aye,  worse,  the  murderer  of  men's  bodies 
and  the  corruptor  of  men's  minds,  and  in  so  far  as  we  Americans  are 
concerned,  the  father  of  FEAR. 

B — I  believe  that  Preparedness  now,  as  always,  is  only  a  name  for 
Preparation  for  War, — however  righteous  the  intentions.  (I  believe  His- 
tory proves  this  statement.)  I  believe  that  an  UNARMED  Country  may 
survive  but  I  know  that  an  ARMED  Country  will  not  survive. 


46  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

C— I  believe  that  it  takes  more  COURAGE  to  stand  UNARMED  for 
RIGHT  in  the  light  of  day,  than  to  skulk  inside  Fortresses  with  a  dagger 
in  your  boot  and  a  pistol  in  your  hip  pocket,  and  dare  some  one  to  stick 
his  head  up  over  the  wall. 

D — I  believe  that  disarmament  will  come  when  some  one  Great  Nation 
risks  everything  "on  one  turn  of  pitch  and  toss";  abolishes  its  Ammuni- 
tion Factories,  razes  its  Forts,  or  makes  of  them  Export  Trade  Depots; 
turns  its  Army  and  Navy  Academies  into  Agricultural  and  Commercial 
Institutes;  gives  its  Soldiers  and  Sailors  a  CONSTRUCTIVE  job,  and  says 
to  the  World:  "War  is  murder,  and  to  save  the  lives  of  millions  of  men 
to  come,  we  will  disarm  now;  we  will  take  the  chance;  we  invite  you  to 
join  us !  We  are  Americans,  and  we  stand  for  *  life,  liberty  and  the  pursuit 
of  happiness !  J ' 

E — I  believe  that  Opportunity  is  pounding  on  the  door  and  calling  to 
America  "  Come !  You  shall  do  more  for  civilization  than  did  Ancient 
Greece! — to  you  is  the  honor  and  glory  of  eliminating  bloody,  brutal 
WTar!  " — And  we  in  under  the  bed  toy  with  our  cap  pistol  and  our  honor 
and  hesitate. 

F— I  believe,  "  Thou  shalt  not  kill." 

(Signed)     ELBEBT  HUBBABD  II. 


OPINIONS  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE- 
ARMED    PREPAREDNESS    AGAINST 
WAR 

EXPRESSED    IN     THE    WRITINGS    AND    PUBLIC 
SPEECHES    OF    THE    MOST    NOTED    OPPO- 
NENTS OF  NATIONAL  DEFENSE. 

In  the  foregoing  pages  I  have  presented  some  letters  from  leaders  of 
American  thought  upon  both  sides  of  the  question  of  our  needs  for  pre- 
paredness for  national  defense  against  war. 

As  I  have  already  pointed  out,  these  letters  have  been  printed  without 
any  criticism  or  comment  by  me  or  by  anyone  else,  in  order  that  the 
reader  may,  upon  reading  them,  form  his  opinion  according  to  his  own 
understanding  of  the  evidence  presented,  and  from  his  confidence  or  lack 
of  it  in  the  ability  and  sincerity  of  those  who  have  written  the  letters. 

In  the  following  pages  I  have  given  at  considerable  length  the  opinions 
of  some  of  the  most  noted  pacifists,  both  those  who  take  an  extreme  posi- 
tion against  all  forms  of  armed  preparedness  and  those  who  occupy  a  mid- 
dle ground;  and  I  have  followed  these  opinions  with  some  comments  of 
my  own,  merely  when  and  where  necessary  to  provide  the  reader  an  op- 
portunity of  seeing  the  subject  in  its  various  aspects. 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  47 

MR.  BRYAN'S  OPINION 

I  here  reproduce  in  its  entirety  a  booklet  issued  and  circulated  by  the 
pacifists,  under  the  title  "  Do  You  Advocate  Peace  or  War  ?  "  which  con- 
tains a  long  speech  by  Hon.  William  Jennings  Bryan. 

The  booklet  also  contains  a  Statement  given  to  Press  of  North  Caro- 
lina, November  20,  1915,  by  Hon.  Claude  Kitchin,  which  is  also  repro- 
duced here  in  its  entirety. 

THE    WAR   IN   EUROPE 
AND  ITS   LESSONS   FOR  US 

Address  delivered  by  WILLIAM  JENNINGS  BRYAN  at  Johnstown, 
Pa.,  November  1,  1915.  This  address  presents  the  line  of  argument  which 
he  has,  during  the  past  four  months,  followed  in  urging  peace  and  opposing 
preparedness. 

Mr.  Chairman:  I  appreciate  the  opportunity  which  this  occasion 
affords  to  present  to  the  people  of  Johnstown  a  subject  which  is  in  their 
minds  and  on  my  heart.  I  am  grateful,  too,  for  the  gracious  words  which 
have  been  employed  in  presenting  me  to  you.  If  you  feel,  as  I  do,  that 
the  Chairman  has  been  more  than  generous,  please  remember  that  one  in 
public  life  must  be  over-praised  by  his  friends  in  order  to  make  up  for  the 
unjust  criticism  which  he  receives  from  his  enemies. 

While  I  have  found  receptive  audiences  all  over  the  country,  there  is 
no  community  in  which  I  would  expect  a  more  sympathetic  hearing  than 
in  this,  because  the  distinguished  gentleman  who  represents  you  in  Con- 
gress views  the  subject  from  the  same  standpoint  that  I  do.  Whenever 
a  new  question  arises  upon  which  the  people  have  not  expressed  them- 
selves, it  is  important  that  each  individual  should  make  known  his  views 
in  order  that  public  opinion  may  represent  the  voters  generally  and  not 
a  portion  of  the  people  only.  The  country  would  be  fortunate  if  all  of  our 
public  men  were  as  candid  and  as  courageous  in  taking  a  position  as 
Congressman  Bailey,  who  honors  you  as  he  is  honored  by  you. 

In  order  that  you  may  follow  me  the  more  easily  I  shall  outline  in 
advance  the  address  which  I  am  to  deliver  to  you.  It  naturally  divides 
itself  into  three  parts:  first,  the  war  as  it  is  and  its  injury  to  neutrals; 
second,  the  false  philosophy  out  of  which  the  war  has  grown  and  the 
natural  results  of  that  false  philosophy;  and,  third,  the  way  out,  or  the 
road  to  permament  peace.  The  subject  is  presented  with  a  view  to  em- 
phasizing the  lessons  which  this  country  can  draw  from  the  conflict  be- 
yond the  ocean. 

No  matter  by  what  standard  you  measure  this  war,  it  is  without 
precedent  or  parallel.  I  will  not  call  it  the  greatest  war  in  history,  for 
the  word  great  implies  something  more  than  bigness.  When  we  speak  of 
a  great  institution  or  a  great  movement,  we  have  in  mind  something  more 
than  mere  size.  There  have  been,  I  think,  greater  wars  than  this,  but  none 
that  approached  it  in  bigness.  It  is  the  biggest  war  ever  known  if  we 
measure  it  by  the  population  of  the  nations  at  war — never  before  have  so 
many  people  lived  in  belligerent  nations.  It  is  also  the  biggest  war  of 
which  history  tells  if  we  measure  it  by  the  number  of  enlisted  men  who 
face  each  other  upon  its  many  battle  fields.  The  estimates  run  from 


48  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

twenty-one  to  thirty-one  millions.  Rather  than  risk  exaggeration,  let  us 
take  the  lowest  estimate;  it  is  sufficient  to  make  the  war  impressive.  In 
fact,  the  number  is  so  great  that  the  mind  can  scarcely  comprehend  it. 
Let  me  translate  it  into  everyday  language  by  comparing  it  with  our  vot- 
ing population.  We  have  never  cast  as  many  as  twenty-one  million  votes 
at  an  election.  That  means  that  if  all  in  every  State  who  have  on  a  single 
day  exercised  the  right  of  suffrage  could  be  gathered  together  in  one  place, 
the  concourse,  vast  as  it  would  be,  would  fall  several  millions  short  of  the 
number  now  actually  engaged  in  fighting. 

More  than  two  million  have  been  wounded  thus  far.  If  on  any  part 
of  the  globe  one  hundred  thousand  persons  were  swept  to  death  by  pesti- 
lence, or  flood,  or  famine,  the  world  would  stand  appalled;  and  yet,  in  a 
little  more  than  a  year,  more  than  twenty  times  one  hundred  thousand 
have  been  summoned  to  meet  their  God,  and  everyone  owes  his  death  to  the 
deliberate  intent  and  act  of  a  fellowman.  More  than  five  million  have 
been  wounded — this  will  give  you  some  idea  of  the  awful  toll  that  this 
awful  war  is  exacting  in  life  and  suffering. 

If  we  measure  the  war  by  the  destructiveness  of  the  implements  em- 
ployed, nothing  so  horrible  has  ever  been  known  before.  They  used  to 
be  content  to  use  the  earth's  surface  for  the  maneuvers  of  war,  but  now 
they  have  taken  possession  of  the  air,  and  thunder  bolts  more  deadly  than 
the  thunder-bolts  of  Jove  fall  as  if  from  the  clouds  on  unsuspecting  peo- 
ple. And  they  have  taken  possession  of  the  ocean's  depths  as  well,  and 
death  dealing  torpedoes  rise  from  out  the  darkness  to  multiply  the  perils 
of  the  sea.  They  have  substituted  a  long  range  rifle  for  a  short  range 
rifle,  a  big  mouthed  gun  for  a  little  mouthed  gun,  a  dreadnought  for  a 
battle  ship,  and  a  super-dreadnought  for  a  dreadnought,  to  which  they 
have  added  the  submarine.  And  they  now  pour  liquid  fire  on  battle  lines 
and  suffocate  soldiers  in  the  trenches  with  poisonous  gases.  Inventive 
genius  has  been  exhausted  to  find  new  ways  by  which  man  can  kill  his 
fellowman ! 

And  the  nations  which  are  at  war  are  not  barbarous  nations — they 
are  among  the  most  civilized  of  the  earth;  neither  are  they  heathen  na- 
tions— they  are  among  the  Christian  nations  of  the  globe.  They  all  wor- 
ship the  same  God;  and  most  of  them  approach  that  God  through  the 
same  mediator.  They  offer  their  supplications  to  a  common  Heavenly 
Father  and  then  rise  up  to  take  each  other's  lives. 

It  would  be  bad  enough  if  the  penalties  of  this  war  fell  only  upon 
the  guilty;  but  a  vast  majority  of  the  men  who  die  and  of  the  women 
who  weep  have  had  neither  part  nor  voice  in  determining  whether  there 
should  be  peace  or  war.  It  would  be  bad  enough  if  the  burdens  of  this 
war  fell  only  upon  the  nations  participating  in  it,  but  like  a  mighty  flood, 
this  war  has  inundated  the  world,  and  neutral  nations  as  well  as  bel- 
ligerent nations  are  suffering. 

The  Latin-speaking  Republics  are  kept  busy  night  and  day  trying  to 
preserve  neutrality;  they  maintain  an  extensive  patrol  over  the  three  mile 
strip  along  their  coasts  to  keep  big  nations  from  violating  their  neutrality 
by  fighting  within  their  territorial  limits.  And  all  the  neutral  nations  are 
bearing  burdens  of  taxation  which  would  not  be  necessary  but  for  the  war; 
they  are  compelled  to  resort  to  new  and  unusual  methods  for  the  collecting 
of  revenue  because  the  war  has  put  their  fiscal  systems  out  of  joint. 

The  trade  of  the  world  is  deranged  and  our  nation,  the  greatest  of 
the  neutral  nations  and  the  one  with  the  largest  foreign  commerce,  is 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  49 

suffering  more  than  any  of  the  others.  When  the  war  began  we  were 
using  the  ships  of  other  nations  largely  for  the  carrying  of  our  merchan- 
dise, when,  all  at  once,  the  very  nations  whose  ships  we  employed  became 
involved  in  war,  and  then  one  side  drove  the  ships  of  the  other  side  into  our 
harbors  and  compelled  them  to  intern  there,  and,  according  to  International 
Law,  there  these  ships  must  remain  during  the  war,  idle  and  useless, 
while  we  suffer  for  lack  of  ships.  And  the  nations  that  drove  these 
merchantmen  from  the  seas  are  not  under  any  obligation,  according  to 
International  Law,  to  supply  vessels  to  take  the  place  of  the  ones  of  which 
they  have  deprived  us.  On  the  contrary,  they  are  at  liberty  to  withdraw 
their  own  vessels  for  use  in  the  transport  service,  and  to  some  extent  they 
have  done  so,  still  further  crippling  the  carrying  trade  of  the  ocean.  Be- 
cause of  lack  of  ships  and  because  of  the  increased  risks  of  the  sea  it  has 
sometimes  cost  seven  times  as  much  to  send  a  bale  of  cotton  across  the  ocean 
as  it  cost  in  normal  times.  When  on  the  Pacific  Coast  a  few  weeks  ago, 
I  learned  that  it  then  cost  nearly  three  times  as  much  to  transport  a 
bushel  of  wheat  to  Europe  as  it  cost  in  time  of  peace.  These  are  some  of 
the  burdens  which  neutral  nations  are  bearing;  and,  in  addition  to  these 
all  of  them  are  in  danger  of  being  drawn  into  this  war,  although  none 
of  them  desire  to  take  part  in  it. 

When  you  understand  International  Law  as  now  interpreted  and  ap- 
plied, you  will  feel  as  I  do,  that  International  Law  seems  to  have  been 
written  for  the  benefit  of  nations  at  war  rather  than  for  the  benefit  of 
nations  at  peace.  I  am  hoping  that,  when  this  war  is  over,  we  shall  be 
able  to  secure  such  changes  as  may  be  necessary  to  write  International 
Law  upon  the  theory  that  peace,  and  not  war,  is  the  normal  relation  be- 
tween nations — amendments  which  will  make  the  rule  read,  not  as  it  seems 
to  now;  namely,  that  nations  at  peace  may  attend  to  their  own  business 
so  long  as  they  do  not  interfere  with  the  fight;  but  will  provide  that 
nations  that  do  fight  must  not  disturb  the  peace,  the  commerce,  or  the 
prosperity  of  the  nations  that  prefer  to  substitute  reason  for  force  in  the 
settlement  of  their  international  differences. 

I  have  called  attention  to  the  outstanding  features  of  this  war  that 
you  might  comprehend  its  magnitude ;  and  I  have  mentioned  some  of  the 
injuries  suffered  by  neutrals  that  you  might  understand  how  earnestly 
the  neutral  nations  long  for  the  return  of  peace,  but  I  cannot  conclude  this 
part  of  my  address  without  impressing  upon  your  minds  two  facts  which 
it  is  necessary  for  us  to  keep  in  mind.  If  all  the  newspapers  had  obeyed 
the  President  and  observed  neutrality  his  tasks  would  not  have  been  so 
delicate  and  the  people  would  have  been  better  informed.  But  while  most 
of  the  newspapers  have  tried  to  be  neutral,  we  have  had  two  unneutral 
groups — the  pro-ally  group  and  the  pro-German  group.  The  pro-ally  group 
has  emphasized  our  disputes  with  Germany,  and  the  pro-German  group  has 
emphasized  our  disputes  with  Great  Britain.  We  have  had  disputes 
with  both;  we  have  protested  to  Germany  against  the  use  she  has  made  of 
submarines,  and  to  Great  Britain  against  interference  with  our  trade  with 
neutrals.  If  you  will  read  the  notes  which  our  Government  has  sent,  you 
will  find  that  our  rights,  as  we  understand  those  rights,  have  been  vio- 
lated, not  by  one  side  only,  but  by  both  sides,  and  that  injuries  have  come 
to  us  from  both  sides. 

This  is  the  first  fact  which  we  must  keep  in  mind,  and  the  second 
is  related  to  it;  namely,  that  while  both  sides  have  injured  us,  neither 
side  has  desired  to  do  so.  The  injuries  which  we  have  suffered  have  not 


50  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

been  intended  against  us,  but  have  been  incidental  to  the  injury  which 
each  has  intended  against  the  other.  They  are  like  two  men  shooting  at 
each  other  in  the  street,  who  are  too  much  interested  in  killing  each  other 
to  pay  any  attention  to  the  bystanders  who  get  the  stray  bullets  from  both 
sides.  In  order  to  deal  patiently  with  the  problems  presented  by  this  war 
it  is  necessary  that  we  should  understand  both  of  these  facts — I  repeat  the 
statement  of  them — namely,  that  both  sides  have  injured  us,  but  that 
neither  side  desired  to  do  so.  It  would  be  unfortunate  enough  for  us  to 
go  to  war  with  a  nation  that  hated  us  and  wanted  war  with  us ;  God  for- 
bid that  we  shall  ever  compel  a  nation  to  go  to  war  with  us  if  it  is  not 
an  enemy  and  does  not  want  war  with  the  United  States. 

And  now  allow  me  to  ask  you  to  consider  the  false  philosophy  out  of 
which  this  war  has  grown  and  the  natural  results  of  that  false  philosophy. 
Before  speaking  of  the  real  cause,  it  is  worth  while  to  note  that  some  of 
the  causes  which  have  produced  war  in  the  past  are  not  responsible  for 
this  war.  There  have  been  race  wars  in  history — wars  that  have  been 
the  outgrowth  of  race  prejudices  which  have  sometimes  extended  through 
centuries.  But  this  is  not  a  race  war;  the  races  are  all  mixed  up  in  this 
war.  Saxon  and  Slav  are  allies;  Latin  and  Frank  are  allies;  Teuton  and 
Turk  are  allies.  And  now,  since  Bulgaria  has  entered  the  war,  Slav  is 
fighting  Slav,  and  it  is  not  yet  know  whether  the  Greek,  if  he  enters  the 
war,  will  side  with  Turk  or  Roman.  The  races  are  inexplicably  mixed. 

And  it  is  not  a  religious  war.  There  have  been  religious  wars,  although 
we  can  not  understand  how  a  war  could  arise  over  a  religious  difference. 
We  have  learned  to  believe  that  the  right  to  worship  God  according  to  the 
dictates  of  one's  conscience  is  an  inalienable  right,  and  it  would  never 
occur  to  us  that  a  man  would  kill  another  in  order  to  prove  that  his  re- 
ligion is  better  than  the  other  man's  religion.  According  to  our  theory, 
if  a  man  desires  to  prove  the  superiority  of  his  religion,  he  lives  it,  for  we 
do  not  count  a  religion  as  worthy  of  the  name  if  it  does  not  manifest 
itself  in  the  life.  There  have,  however,  been  religious  wars,  but  this  is  not 
one  of  them.  On  the  Bosphorus  the  crescent  and  the  cross  float  above  the 
same  legions;  a  Protestant  Emperor  of  Germany  is  the  ally  of  a  Catholic 
Emperor  of  Austria;  and  you  will  find  fighting  in  the  same  army  corps 
representatives  of  three  great  branches  of  the  Christian  church,  Catholics, 
members  of  the  Church  of  England  and  members  of  the  Greek  church.  The 
religions  are  as  badly  mixed  in  this  war  as  the  races. 

And  it  is  not  a  family  war.  There  have  been  family  wars — wars  that 
have  had  their  origin  in  family  feuds  or  in  family  greed,  but  in  this  war 
the  families  are  mixed.  The  Emperor  of  Germany,  the  King  of  England, 
and  the  Czar  of  Russia  are  cousins,  members  of  one  Royal  family,  although 
you  would  never  suspect  from  the  way  they  treat  each  other  that  they 
are  closely  related  by  ties  of  blood. 

And  there  was  no  cause  of  war  apparent  on  the  surface.  Within  a 
month  of  the  beginning  of  the  war  the  rulers  who  are  now  fighting  each 
other  were  visiting  each  other;  they  were  being  hospitably  received  and 
royally  entertained.  When  one  of  them  had  a  birthday,  the  others  all 
joined  in  wishing  him  many  happy  returns  of  the  day.  It  would  be  a 
libel  upon  the  rulers  now  at  war  to  say  that  they  knew  that  a  cause 
existed  adequate  to  produce  such  a  war.  For  had  they  known  of  the 
existence  of  such  a  cause,  it  would  have  been  their  duty  to  their  subjects 
to  lay  aside  social  festivities  and  the  exchange  of  compliments  that  they 
might  join  together  and  remove  the  cause  of  war.  But  without  a  race 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  51 

cause,  a  religious  cause,  a  family  cause,  or  any  cause  visible  to  the  public, 
this  war  began,  and  such  a  war  as  history  has  never  known!  There 
must  be  a  cause  and  it  must  be  a  human  cause,  for  no  one  who  loves  God 
would  ever  blame  Him  for  this  inhuman  war.  It  behooves  us  to  find  the 
cause,  that,  knowing  the  cause,  we  may,  by  avoiding  it,  avoid  the  con- 
sequences. 

I  have  tried  to  find  the  cause  of  this  war,  and,  if  my  analysis  of  the 
situation  is  correct,  the  cause  is  to  be  found  in  a  false  philosophy — in  the 
doctrine  that  "  might  makes  right."  This  doctrine  was  formerly  proclaimed 
quite  publicly;  now  it  is  no  longer  openly  proclaimed,  but  it  is  sometimes 
practiced  when  the  temptation  is  sufficient.  Before  you  become  excited — 
while  you  can  yet  reason,  I  appeal  to  you  to  set  the  seal  of  your  condem- 
nation against  this  brutal,  barbarous  doctrine  that  "  might  makes  right." 
And  that  you  may  see  more  clearly  the  importance  of  reaching  a  conclu- 
sion and  proclaiming  it,  I  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  there  is 
but  one  code  of  morals  known  among  men  and  that  is  the  code  that  regu- 
lates individual  life.  If  this  code  of  morals  is  not  to  be  applied  to  nations, 
then  there  is  no  moral  code  which  can  be  invoked  for  the  regulation  of 
international  affairs. 

If  I  were  an  artist,  I  would  carry  with  me  a  canvas  and  reproduce 
upon  it  one  of  McCuteheon's  recent  cartoons.  He  represents  war  and  an- 
archy by  two  brutal  looking  human  figures.  Across  the  breast  of  war  he 
has  written  "  might  is  right,"  and  across  the  breast  of  anarchy  the  words 
"  dynamite  is  right."  I  challenge  you  to  draw  a  line  between  the  two 
doctrines.  The  nation  that  takes  the  position  that  it  is  at  liberty  to  seize 
whatever  it  has  the  power  to  seize,  and  to  hold  whatever  it  has  the  strength 
to  hold;  the  nation  that  plants  itself  upon  the  doctrine  that  might  makes 
right  has  no  system  of  logic  with  which  to  address  itself  to  citizen  or 
subject  who,  as  against  his  neighbor  or  as  against  his  government,  in- 
vokes the  kindred  doctrine  that  dynamite  is  right. 

If  you  will  take  your  Bibles  and  turn  back  to  the  story  of  Naboth's 
vineyard,  you  will  find  that  Ahab  violated  three  commandments  in  order 
to  secure  a  little  piece  of  land.  The  commandments  read,  "Thou  shalt 
not  covet";  "Thou  shalt  not  steal";  and  "Thou  shalt  not  kill,"  and 
these  commandments  are  not  only  without  limitation,  but  they  are  not 
subject  to  limitation. 

Take  for  instance  the  commandment  against  covetousness.  After 
specifying  certain  things  that  must  not  be  coveted,  the  commandment  con- 
cludes with  the  clause  "or  anything  that  is  thy  neighbor's."  If  this  has 
any  meaning,  it  covers  everything.  There  is  no  process  of  reasoning  by 
which  we  can  retain  that  commandment  and  make  it  binding  upon  the 
conscience  of  the  individual  if  we  hold  sinless  the  nation  that  covets  the 
territory  of  another  nation.  And  yet  the  coveting  of  territory  has  been 
the  fruitful  cause  of  war. 

And  so  with  the  commandment  against  stealing.  It  does  not  read 
"  thou  shalt  not  steal  on  a  small  scale,"  it  simply  says  "  thou  shalt  not 
steal."  And  yet  I  am  not  telling  you  anything  new  when  I  tell  you  that 
as  a  rule — not  always,  but  as  a  rule — it  is  safer  even  in  this  country  for 
a  man  to  steal  a  large  sum  than  a  small  sum.  If  he  steals  a  small  sum 
he  is  just  a  common,  vulgar  thief  and  nobody  has  any  respect  for  him; 
if  he  has  any  friends  they  are  careful  not  to  allow  the  fact  to  be  known. 
If,  however,  he  steals  a  large  sum,  he  has  two  advantages  over  the  petty 
thief.  In  the  first  place,  if  he  steals  enough,  he  can  employ  the  ablest 


52  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

lawyers,  and  his  lawyers  can  usually — not  always,  but  usually — keep  him 
out  on  bail  until  he  dies  a  natural  death  while  they  discuss  technicalities 
in  all  the  courts  of  the  land.  And  he  has  a  second  advantage;  if  he  steals 
a  large  sum,  he  can  always  find  enough  people  to  furnish  him  social  com- 
panionship who  will  be  so  amazed  at  his  genius  that  they  will  never  men- 
tion his  rascality  in  his  presence.  If  we  find  it  so  difficult  to  visit  the 
same  indignation  upon  grand  larceny  that  we  do  upon  petty  larceny  we 
must  not  be  surprised  if,  when  one  nation  steals  a  large  amount  from 
another  nation,  there  are  some  who  regard  it  as  an  act  of  patriotism. 

And  the  commandment  against  killing  does  not  read  that  you 
must  not  kill  unless  a  large  number  join  with  you.  On  the  contrary,  the 
Bible  plainly  declares  that  "  though  hand  join  in  hand,  they  shall  not  be 
unpunished."  And  it  does  not  say  that  if  you  do  kill,  you  should  be 
gentle  about  it  and  use  the  most  approved  methods.  On  the  contrary, 
there  is  no  intimation  anywhere  that  the  moral  character  of  the  act  can 
be  changed  by  the  method  employed  in  putting  an  end  to  a  human  life. 
It  is  just  a  plain,  blunt  "  thou  shalt  not  kill,"  and  yet  as  we  read  history 
we  are  compelled  to  admit  that  it  has  been  easier  for  governments  to  hang 
one  man  for  killing  one  man  than  to  punish  killing  by  wholesale.  And 
many  poets  have  felt  impelled  to  express  themselves  much  in  the  language 
employed  by  the  author  of  Gray's  Elegy  who  speaks  of  those  who  "  wade 
through  slaughter  to  a  throne,  and  shut  the  gates  of  mercy  on  mankind." 

I  have  called  attention  to  these  commandments  for  the  purpose  of 
emphasizing  the  fact  that  if  we  adopt  the  doctrine  that  "  might  makes 
right "  we  must  be  prepared  to  repudiate  all  of  the  moral  code  upon  which 
we  rely  for  the  protection  of  individual  life  and  the  guarantee  of  private 
property. 

The  nations  that  adopt  the  doctrine  that  "might  makes  right,"  are 
quite  sure  to  act  upon  the  maxim  "  like  cures  like,"  the  foundation  upon 
which  the  law  of  retaliation  is  built.  The  logic  of  the  law  of  retaliation 
is  like  this:  If  your  enemy  is  cruel,  cure  him  of  his  cruelty  by  being 
more  cruel  than  he;  if  your  enemy  is  inhuman,  instead  of  attempting  to 
lift  him  out  of  his  inhumanity  by  the  power  of  a  good  example,  be  more 
inhuman  than  he.  Nations  that  enter  a  war  on  the  theory  that  "might 
makes  right "  are  soon  in  a  neck  and  neck  race  for  the  bottomless  pit, 
each  nation  justifying  its  own  cruelty  and  inhumanity  by  the  cruelty 
and  inhumanity  of  its  enemy. 

I  have  purposely  applied  this  false  philosophy  to  those  far  away  be- 
fore applying  it  at  home  because  I  have  learned  by  experience  that  it  is 
easier  to  persuade  people  to  endorse  a  proposition  when  applied  to  others 
than  when  applied  to  themselves.  But  if  I  may  assume  that  you  have 
followed  me  and  that  we  are  now  in  agreement,  I  am  now  prepared  to 
apply  this  false  philosophy  to  a  matter  with  which  we  are  compelled  to 
deal  whether  we  desire  to  do  so  or  not.  The  issue  is  upon  us  and  can- 
not be  avoided. 

There  was  a  time  when  some  believed  that  war  was  a  moral  tonic — 
when  some  actually  thought  that  unless  people  were  kept  up  to  fighting 
pitch  they  would  degenerate.  That  seems  absurd  to  us,  for  we  know  that, 
if  war  were  necessary  to  man's  moral  development,  it  would  not  be  left 
to  accident  or  chance.  If  war  were  a  necessary  thing,  we  would  plan  for 
it  as  we  plan  for  other  things  which  we  consider  necessary.  We  know 
that  food  is  necessary  for  the  body  and  therefore  we  provide  that  the  body 
shall  receive  food  at  stated  intervals,  the  intervals  being  adjusted  to  the 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  53 

body's  needs.  And  so,  because  we  believe  the  mind  in  need  of  education 
we  provide  for  terms  of  school.  If  we  believed  war  to  be  necessary  we 
would  call  in  experts  and  ascertain  just  how  long  a  man  could  go  without 
killing  someone  and  yet  maintain  a  high  standard  of  civilization,  and 
then  we  would  provide  for  wars  at  such  regular  intervals  as,  in  our  opinion, 
would  insure  man's  progress,  and  the  time  between  wars  would  then  be 
like  the  time  between  school  terms — a  time  when  we  could  rest  and  relax 
and  get  ready  for  another  war.  This  we  would  do  if  we  regarded  war  as 
necessary.  But,  however  war  may  have  been  considered  by  some  in  the 
past,  the  world  now  believes  war  to  be  not  only  unnecessary  and  unde- 
sirable, but  a  calamity. 

If  there  are  any  who  doubt  this  I  am  prepared  to  furnish  recently 
secured  testimony.  When  this  war  began  the  President  offered  mediation 
and  the  rulers  of  the  nations  then  involved  immediately  answered  and  their 
answers  were  so  much  alike  that  one  answer  might  have  served  for  all. 
What  did  they  say  ?  Each  ruler  said  in  substance :  "  I  am  not  guilty ; 
I  did  not  desire  this  war;  I  am  not  to  blame  for  this  war;  some  one  else 
began  it."  They  all  with  one  accord  denied  responsibility.  The  world  is 
to  be  congratulated  that  we  have  reached  a  time  when  no  ruler  in  a  civi- 
lized land  dares  to  admit  that  he  caused  this  war  or  even  desired  it — 
this  is  a  long  step  in  advance.  It  is  not  necessary,  therefore,  to  waste 
any  time  in  an  effort  to  prove  that  war  is  a  curse.  That  may  now  be  taken 
for  granted,  and  we  are  at  liberty  to  devote  all  of  our  energies  to  the 
prevention  of  war. 

But  just  when  it  has  become  possible  to  unite  in  an  effort  to  prevent 
war  we  find  a  radical  difference  of  opinion  as  to  how  war  can  be  prevented. 
A  propaganda  is  being  actively  carried  on  which  has  for  its  object  the 
establishment  of  the  doctrine  that  the  only  way  to  preserve  peace  is  to 
get  ready  for  war.  The  exponents  of  this  theory  admit  that  war  is  a  hor- 
rible thing  and  that  it  should  be  avoided,  but  they  contend  that  the  only 
way  to  prevent  war  is  to  organize,  arm  and  drill,  and  then  stand,  rifle 
in  hand  and  finger  on  hair-trigger — and  preserve  the  peace.  I  never  ex- 
pected  to  hear  this  theory  advanced  after  the  present  war  began.  At  each 
session  of  Congress,  during  the  past  fifteen  or  twenty  years,  we  have 
heard  some  advocating  this  doctrine  and  insisting  on  more  battleships 
and  a  larger  army,  but  their  interest  could  generally  be  traced  to  their 
business  connections — they  were  anxious  to  furnish  the  preparedness  them- 
selves and  therefore  advocates  of  the  theory.  But  when  this  war  broke 
out  I  thought  that  at  least  one  good  would  come  out  of  it,  namely,  that  no 
one  would  hereafter  stand  before  an  intelligent  audience  and  argue  that 
preparedness  would  prevent  war.  If  war  could  be  prevented  by  prepared- 
ness, there  would  be  no  war  in  Europe  today,  for  they  have  spent  a  gen- 
eration getting  ready  for  this  war.  They  had  the  kindling  all  ready;  all 
they  needed  was  a  match.  When  the  war  broke  out  those  best  prepared 
went  in  first  and  others  followed  as  they  could  prepare,  and  I  believe  that, 
if  we  had  been  as  well  prepared  as  some  now  ask  us  to  be,  we  would  be 
in  the  war  today  shouting  for  blood  as  lustily  as  any  of  them. 

This  is  so  serious  a  matter  and  it  is  so  vitally  important  that  we 
should  follow  the  course  best  calculated  to  prevent  war  that  I  beg  you  to 
listen  while  I  present  the  reasons  which  lead  me  to  believe  that  the  pre- 
paredness which  they  now  propose  would  not  only  not  prevent  war,  but 
would  actually  provoke  war — that  with  the  things  that  necessarily  accom- 
pany it  preparedness  would  inevitably  lead  us  into  the  wars  against  which 


54  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

they  ask  us  to  prepare.  In  the  first  place  we  can  not  have  a  period  of  pre- 
paredness without  submitting  ourselves  to  the  leadership  of  those  who 
believe  in  the  doctrine  that  peace  rests  upon  fear;  that  we  can  only  pre- 
serve the  peace  by  making  people  afraid  of  us.  This  is  folly  of  the  ages — 
the  very  theory  that  has  led  Europe  into  this  present  conflict.  And  more, 
if  we  are  driven  to  preparedness  by  the  scares  that  are  now  being  worked 
up,  we  must  follow  the  leadership,  not  of  those  who  advocate  moderate 
preparedness,  but  of  those  who  insist  upon  extreme  preparedness.  If  we 
must  prepare  a  little  because  we  are  told  that  one  nation  may  attack  us, 
we  must  prepare  more  if  another  group  of  jingoes  warns  us  against  an 
attack  joined  in  by  several  nations,  and  we  must  go  to  the  very  limit  if 
a  third  group  pictures  an  attack  in  which  the  world  will  combine  against 
us.  There  is  no  limit  to  the  amount  of  preparation  that  we  shall  need  if 
we  are  to  provide  against  every  imaginary  danger  and  every  possible  con- 
tingency. 

The  real  question  which  we  have  to  decide  is,  What  shall  be  our 
standard  of  honor?  Shall  it  be  the  European  standard — which  is  the 
duelist's  standard — or  shall  it  be  a  standard  in  keeping  with  our  aspira- 
tions and  achievements?  The  advocates  of  extreme  preparedness  are  at- 
tempting to  fasten  upon  this  country  the  duelist's  standard  of  honor  and 
we  know  what  that  standard  is  because  we  had  it  in  this  country  a  hundred 
years  ago.  When  that  standard  was  supported  by  public  sentiment  men 
were  compelled  to  fight  duels  even  when  they  did  not  believe  in  the  prac- 
tice ;  they  were  branded  as  cowards  if  they  declined.  The  case  of  Alexander 
Hamilton  is  an  illustration  in  point.  While  I  prefer  the  ideas  of  Jefferson 
to  the  ideas  of  Hamilton,  I  recognize,  as  all  must,  that  Hamilton  was  one 
of  the  heroic  figures  of  the  Revolutionary  days.  He  fought  a  duel  and  fell, 
and  the  last  thing  he  did  before  he  left  home  for  the  fatal  field  was  to 
prepare  a  statement  which  he  left  to  posterity,  saying  that  he  did  not 
believe  in  the  practice,  but  that  he  felt  it  necessary  to  conform  to  the 
custom  in  order  to  be  useful  in  crises  which  he  thought  he  saw  approaching. 
The  duelist  standard  of  honor  was  this:  If  a  man  had  a  wife  and  she 
needed  him,  he  had  no  right  to  think  of  his  wife;  if  he  had  children  and 
they  needed  him,  he  had  no  right  to  think  of  his  children;  if  his  country 
needed  him,  he  had  no  right  to  think  of  his  country.  The  only  thing  he 
could  think  of  was  that  he  must  kill  somebody  or  be  killed  by  somebody. 
According  to  the  duelist's  standard  of  honor,  it  was  more  honorable  for  a 
man  to  throw  his  wife  and  children  upon  the  care  of  a  community  than  to 
allow  what  he  called  an  insult  to  go  unchallenged.  It  required  moral 
courage  on  the  part  of  many  to  effect  the  change  which  has  been  wrought 
on  this  subject,  but  the  change  has  come,  and  we  nof  only  have  a  law 
against  dueling  in  every  State  in  the  Union,  but  we  now  call  the  man  a 
coward  who  sends  the  challenge,  not  the  man  who  declines  it. 

About  fifty  years  ago  a  prominent  statesman  of  Georgia  received  a 
challenge  from  another  statesman  of  that  State.  Had  the  challenge  been 
received  a  century  ago  instead  of  a  half  century  the  one  who  received  it 
would  hardly  have  dared  to  decline.  But  a  change  was  talking  place  and 
the  challenge  was  declined  in  an  answer  that  has  become  a  part  of  history, 
The  challenged  party  said:  "No.  I  have  a  family  to  take  care  of  and  a 
soul  to  save  and,  as  you  have  neither,  we  would  not  fight  on  equal  terms. 
Therefore,  I  will  not  fight."  No  nation  is  challenging  us;  no  nation  is 
trying  to  draw  us  into  war  with  itself.  But  if,  in  a  moment  of  excite- 
ment, one  of  the  madmen  of  Europe  were  to  challenge  us,  I  think  we  would 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  55 

be  justified  in  answering  in  the  spirit  of  the  answer  of  that  Georgia  states- 
man :  "  No.  We  have  the  welfare  of  a  hundred  millions  of  people  to  guard 
and  priceless  ideals  to  preserve,  and  we  will  not  get  down  and  wallow  with 
you  in  the  mire  of  human  blood,  just  to  conform  to  a  false  standard  of 
honor." 

Do  not  allow  yourselves  to  be  deceived  or  misled  as  to  the  real  issue. 
The  question  is  not  whether  this  nation  would  defend  itself  if  attacked. 
We  have  a  potential  power  of  defense  such  as  no  other  nation  has  today — 
such  as  no  other  nation  has  ever  had,  and  other  nations  know  it.  There 
is  no  danger  that  an  attack  would  not  be  resisted,  and  we  would  not  depend 
upon  the  jingoes.  They  would  be  too  busy  making  army  contracts  anr 
loaning  money  at  high  rates  of  interest  to  reach  the  front.  If  we  ever  hav^ 
a  war,  we  will  depend,  as  in  the  past,  upon  those  who  work  when  the 
country  needs  workers  and  fight  only  when  the  country  needs  fighters. 

The  question,  I  repeat,  is  not  whether  we  would  be  willing  or  able  to 
defend  ourselves  if  attacked.  The  real  question  is  whether  we  shall  adopt 
the  European  standard  of  honor  and  build  our  hope  of  safety  upon  prepara 
tions  which  can  not  be  made  without  substituting  for  the  peaceful  spirit 
of  our  people  the  spirit  of  the  militarist  and  the  swagger  of  the  bully. 
The  spirit  that  leads  nations  to  put  their  faith  in  physical  force  is  the 
spirit  that  leads  people  into  war.  It  is  the  spirit  that  expresses  itself  in 
threats  and  revels  in  the  ultimatum. 

If  you  would  know  what  the  dangers  of  preparedness  will  be  if  pre- 
paredness  becomes  a  national  policy  and  is  administered  by  those  who  are 
leading  in  this  crusade,  just  imagine  what  the  situation  would  be  today 
with  so  many  opportunities  to  get  into  trouble,  if  we  had  in  the  White 
House  a  jingo  with  the  duelist's  standard  of  honor  and  anxious  for  a 
fight.  We  have  reason  to  be  grateful  that  we  have  as  President  a  man 
who  loves  peace  and  is  trying  to  find  a  peaceful  solution  of  all  the  problems 
that  confront  us. 

I  ask  you  next  to  remember  that  it  is  an  expensive  thing  to  prepare 
for  wars  that  ought  never  to  come.  It  cost  us  $15,000,000  to  build  the  last 
battleship  launched,  and  that  was  only  one-tenth  of  the  amount  spent  on 
the  navy  that  year.  You  might  think,  from  the  manner  in  which  the 
jingoes  belittle  our  army  and  navy,  that  we  are  at  present  spending  nothing 
on  preparedness.  But  we  are,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  spending  now  two  hun- 
dred and  fifty  millions  of  dollars  annually,  getting  ready  for  war.  We  are 
spending  more  than  one  hundred  and  forty-seven  millions  on  the  navy  and 
over  one  hundred  million  on  the  army;  and  how  much  are  we  spending 
on  agriculture?  The  Department  of  Agriculture,  which  looks  after  the 
interests  of  the  largest  single  group  in  this,  the  largest  agricultural  country 
in  the  world — the  Department  of  Agriculture  which  plants  experimental  sta- 
tions throughout  our  land  and  sends  representatives  throughout  the  world 
to  gather  information  for  the  farmer's  benefit — this  department  receives 
an  appropriation  of  twenty-three  millions  a  year.  We  are,  in  other  words, 
spending  more  than  ten  times  as  much  getting  rea'dy  for  war  as  we  are 
spending  on  the  Department  of  Agriculture.  And  yet  the  jingoes  are  not 
satisfied.  They  say  that  we  must  now  turn  over  a  new  leaf;  that  we  must 
get  ready  in  earnest. 

There  are  two  organizations  in  this  country  which,  together  claiming 
a  monopoly  of  the  patriotism  of  the  nation,  have  taken  upon  themselves 
the  task  of  getting  the  country  ready  for  war.  The  Security  League  thinks 
that  we  should  spend  three  hundred  millions  a  year  on  the  navy  and  one 


56  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

hundred  and  fifty  millions  a  year  on  the  army — two  hundred  millions  more 
than  we  are  now  spending,  or  nearly  double  the  present  appropriations. 
The  Navy  League  is  older,  had  more  ciphers  at  its  disposal  and  had  the 
advantage  of  making  its  bid  after  the  other  bid  had  been  made.  It  insists 
that  we  ought  to  appropriate  five  hundred  millions  for  the  navy  and  have 
an  army  of  a  million  men.  Its  programme  could  not  be  carried  out  for 
seven  hundred  and  fifty  millions  a  year — three  times  the  present  appro- 
priation, or  an  increase  of  five  hundred  millions  a  year. 

To  show  you  what  a  burden  this  would  cast  upon  our  taxpayers  let  us 
assume  that  the  appropriations  for  the  army  and  navy  will  be  kept  at 
what  they  are  now — about  two  hundred  and  fifty  millions  a  year — and 
inquire  what  we  could  do  with  this  proposed  increase  of  five  hundred  mil- 
lions a  year — five  billions  in  ten  years — if  we  spent  it  for  things  beneficial. 
I  was  in  California  last  summer  and  learned  from  a  commissioner  of  high- 
ways of  the  work  they  are  doing  in  the  building  of  hard  roads.  They  are 
spending  eighteen  millions  of  dollars  and  their  plans  contemplate  two 
highways  running  from  the  Oregon  line  to  the  Mexican  line — one  down 
the  Pacific  Coast  and  the  other  down  the  great  central  valleys  of  the  State. 
These  two  highways  are  to  be  connected  at  the  county  seats;  a  splendid 
system.  The  commissioner  told  me  that  it  had  been  found  by  experiment 
that  a  farmer  can  haul  four  times  as  much  with  the  same  team  on  a  hard 
road  as  he  can  haul  on  a  dirt  road,  and  he  can  haul  it  any  day  in  the  year 
and  any  hour  in  the  day,  and  he  does  not  have  to  consult  the  weather 
bureau  when  he  hitches  his  team.  They  are  also  building  hard  roads  in 
Oregon.  The  road  between  Ashland  and  Medford  has  already  reduced  the 
cost  of  carrying  freight  between  the  two  points  50  per  cent.  The  railroads 
charge  16  cents  per  100;  the  auto  trucks  haul  for  8  cents  and  in  addition 
have  eliminated  drayage  charges  at  both  ends  of  the  line. 

They  are  building  hard  roads  in  the  State  of  Washington;  the  road 
between  Seattle  and  Tacoma  is  near  enough  completion  to  enable  auto 
buses  to  compete  successfully  with  the  steam  railways  and  the  electric  lines. 

I  have  made  a  calculation  to  see  how  much  hard  road  could  be  built 
for  five  billions — the  five  hundred  million  increase  would  aggregate  that 
sum  in  ten  years.  From  information  furnished  by  the  Department  of  Agri- 
culture I  find  that  the  average  cost  of  a  macadam  road  16  feet  wide  and 
6  inches  thick  is  a  little  over  $6,000  a  mile.  That  there  may  be  no 
doubt  about  the  estimate  being  sufficient  let  us  arbitrarily  raise  it  to 
$8,333.33  1-3  per  mile,  which  will  enable  us  to  make  the  computation  in 
round  numbers.  If  we  count  the  distance  from  ocean  to  ocean  at  3,000 
miles,  and  the  distance  from  north  to  south  at  1,200  miles,  we  can  with 
five  billions  of  dollars  build  enough  macadam  road,  three  miles  for  $25,000, 
to  make  100  highways  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific,  putting  them 
twelve  miles  apart,  and  highways  north  and  south  twelve  miles  apart,  so 
that  when  the  five  billions  were  spent  the  country  would  be  gridironed 
with  macadam  roads  twelve  miles  apart  east  and  west,  north  and  south, 
and  no  American  citizen  would  then  live  more  than  six  miles  from  a  hard 
road  that  would  take  him  anywhere  in  the  United  States. 

If  the  jingoes  insist  that  we  are  in  danger  of  attack,  let  us  propose 
that  we  get  ready  by  building  roads;  it  will  greatly  increase  our  defensive 
power  if  we  are  able  to  quickly  mobilize  our  army  and  rapidly  transport 
it  to  the  point  threatened.  And  there  is  an  advantage  about  this  kind  of 
preparedness;  if,  after  we  have  prepared  ourselves,  the  war  does  not  come, 
we  shall  be  able  to  make  good  use  of  the  preparation  in  the  work  of  pro- 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  57 

duction.  If,  however,  we  divert  the  money  from  useful  channels  and  spend 
it  all  on  battleships  and  arms  and  ammunition,  we  shall  have  wasted  our 
money  if  the  war  does  not  come;  and  if  it  does  come,  the  chances  are  that 
before  it  comes  changes  in  methods  of  warfare  will  very  much  reduce  the 
value  of  the  preparation  in  which  we  have  invested. 

But  as  some  may  be  more  interested  in  having  the  volume  of  loanable 
money  increased  than  in  having  good  roads  I  present  another  calculation. 
The  total  capital  and  surplus  of  all  the  banks  of  the  United  States — 
national,  State  and  private — aggregate  a  little  less  than  four  billions  of 
dollars;  with  five  billions  we  could  duplicate  every  bank,  double  the  loan- 
able bank  capital  and  surplus  of  the  nation  and  have  a  billion  dollars  left 
with  which  to  celebrate  prosperity. 

The  taxpayers  of  the  country  will  not  be  willing  to  bear  the  burdens 
necessary  for  the  proposed  preparation  unless  they  are  convinced  that  some 
nation  is  about  to  attack  us.  The  jingoes  understand  this  and  they  are, 
therefore,  bearing  false  witness  against  other  nations.  They  tell  us  to 
beware  of  Japan  on  the  west,  and  if  that  does  not  frighten  us  they  pick 
out  some  nation  in  Europe  and  accuse  it  of  having  designs  against  us;  and 
if  that  does  not  frighten  us  they  say :  "  Beware  of  the  fate  of  Belgium !  " 
How  any  normal  mind  can  think  of  Belgium  and  the  United  States  at  the 
same  time  passes  understanding.  Belgium  has  seven  millions  and  a  half 
of  people,  while  we  have  a  hundred  millions.  Would  not  an  ordinary  mind, 
working  smoothly  and  without  excitement,  be  able  to  see  the  difference 
between  seven  and  a  half  and  a  hundred?  And  there  is  a  still  greater 
difference.  Belgium  is  separated  from  the  countries  roundabout  by  an 
imaginary  boundary  line,  while  we  have  the  Pacific  Ocean  on  one  side 
and  the  Atlantic  Ocean  on  the  other.  If  any  one  is  able  to  see  the  differ- 
ence between  an  imaginary  line  and  an  ocean,  let  him  learn  what  difficulty 
the  nations  have  had  in  moving  armies  across  narrow  channels  and  then 
he  will  understand  the  protection  of  the  Atlantic  Ocean. 

We  cannot  single  out  a  nation  and  begin  to  prepare  against  it  without 
cultivating  unfriendliness  toward  that  nation,  and  we  can  not  make  hatred 
a  national  policy  for  a  generation  without  having  our  people  anxious  to 
fight  as  soon  as  they  are  ready  to  fight.  If  the  nations  at  war  had  spent  in 
the  cultivation  of  friendship  but  a  small  percentage  of  the  amount  they  have 
spent  in  stirring  up  hatred,  there  would  be  no  war  in  Europe  today.  We 
should  not  transplant  upon  American  soil  this  tree  of  hatred  unless  we  are 
prepared  to  eat  of  the  fruits  of  the  tree,  for  it  has  been  bearing  its  bloody 
fruit  throughout  the  years. 

The  third  reason  which  I  ask  you  to  consider  is  this.  The  prepared- 
ness which  we  are  now  asked  to  make  is  against  nations  which  are  not 
preparing  to  fight  us.  But  suppose  we  get  ready  to  fight  them;  will  they 
not  prepare  against  us?  If  they  can  scare  us  when  they  are  not  prepared, 
will  we  not  scare  them  when  we  do  prepare?  And  then  will  not  their 
preparation  compel  us  to  prepare  more,  and  will  we  not  scare  them  again 
and  they  us  again,,  and  we  them  again,  until  bankruptcy  overtakes  us  all? 
This  is  no  new  thing.  The  people  who  profit  by  furnishing  preparedness 
have  been  playing  the  nations  of  Europe  against  each  other  for  a  genera- 
tion. Every  battleship  that  is  built  in  one  country  is  made  the  excuse  for 
building  more  battleships  in  other  countries.  Let  me  illustrate  the  plan 
of  the  battleship  builder.  Suppose  three  farmers  lived  around  a  little  lake 
and  a  battleship  builder  wanted  to  increase  his  business — how  would  he 
go  at  it?  He  would  go  to  the  first  farmer  and  say:  "You  are  helpless. 


58  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

If  your  two  neighbors  were  to  combine  against  you,  they  could  overcome 
you;  your  lack  of  preparedness  is  an  invitation  to  them.  Let  me  build 
you  a  battleship  and  anchor  it  here  by  your  land.  Then  they  will  see  that 
you  are  prepared  and  they  will  be  afraid  of  you  and  peace  will  be  pre- 
served." He  would  then  go  to  the  second  farmer  and  say :  "  Do  you  see 
that  battleship  over  there?  Do  you  know  what  that  is  for?  That  is  foi 
you.  Are  you  willing  to  invite  attack  by  being  defenseless?  Let  me  build 
you  two  battleships  and  then  he  will  see  that  you  are  prepared  and  will 
be  afraid  of  you  and  peace  will  be  preserved."  He  would  then  go  to  the 
third  farmer  and  say :  "  Either  one  of  your  neighbors  is  more  than  a 
match  for  you  alone;  together  they  can  annihilate  you.  Your  only  safety 
lies  in  the  building  of  three  battleships.  Then  when  they  see  you  are 
ready  they  will  be  afraid  of  you  and  the  peace  of  the  lake  will  be  pre- 
served." By  this  time  he  would  be  able  to  go  back  to  the  first  man  and 
say:  "Your  little  battleship  is  out  of  date.  It  is  a  provocation  instead 
of  a  protection.  Unless  you  are  willing  to  build  more  ships  you  had  better 
sink  that  one.  It  shows  that  you  want  to  fight  and  everybody  knows 
you  can  not  fight.  You  must  have  four  battleships  of  the  latest  pattern 
in  order  to  prevent  war  by  being  prepared  for  it."  And  so  on  and  so  on. 
This  is  what  they  have  been  doing  in  Europe.  Is  it  possible  that  they  can 
entice  us  into  this  mad  rivalry? 

If  we  are  urged  to  depart  from  the  traditions  of  the  past  and  to  enter 
upon  a  new  policy,  there  are  two  answers  which  can  be  made,  either  of 
them  sufficient.  First,  if  we  ever  intend  to  change  our  policy,  the  change 
must  not  be  made  while  this  war  lasts.  If  we  change  now,  it  will  be  a 
confession  that  we  have  been  wrong  and  that  Europe  has  been  right,  and 
if  we  make  this  confession,  we  shall  not  only  be  powerless  to  assist  the 
belligerent  countries  by  a  good  example,  but  we  shall,  by  imitation,  en- 
courage them  in  the  course  which  has  drawn  them  into  this  unprecedented 
conflict.  If  we  are  ever  to  change  our  policy,  now  of  all  times  is  not  the 
time. 

We  must  consider  also  our  influence  on  Latin  America.  If  we  adopt 
this  new  policy  and  turn  our  energies  from  the  arts  of  peace  to  prepara- 
tion for  war,  will  not  our  neighboring  republics  be  urged  to  follow  our 
example?  Can  we  afford  to  take  the  responsibility  of  retarding  their 
progress  by  encouraging  them  to  divert  their  money  from  needed  improve- 
ments, to  expenditures  which  are  not  only  unnecessary,  but  a  menace  to 
the  friendly  relations  which  now  exist  between  them?  There  is  no  excuse 
for  the  present  outburst  of  war  spirit — it  is  not  only  without  excuse,  but 
contains  infinite  possibilities  for  harm. 

Second,  there  never  has  been  a  time  in  fifty  years  when  we  were  in  less 
danger  than  now.  No  nation  has  any  thought  of  waging  war  against  us 
and  our  preparedness  is  increasing  relatively  more  rapidly  than  ever  be- 
fore. If  the  warring  nations  keep  on  killing  each  other  as  they  are  killing 
each  other  now,  burning  up  property  as  they  are  burning  it  up  now,  and 
mortgaging  the  future  as  they  are  mortgaging  it  now,  they  will  not  have 
left  enough  able-bodied  men,  enough  money  or  enough  credit  to  threaten  a 
nation  like  this.  No,  there  is  no  excuse  for  the  attempt  which  is  now 
being  made  to  lash  the  country  into  a  fright  over  possible  wars.  Let  us 
do  what  we  can  to  stop  the  war  in  Europe;  humanity,  as  well  as  our  own 
security,  demands  it.  But  if  we  can  not  stop  the  war  there — if  the  dogs 
of  war  must  fight — we  should  at  least  keep  hydrophobia  out  of  this  country 
while  the  war  lasts. 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  59 

And  now  let  us  consider  the  way  out  or  the  road  to  permanent  peace. 
And  before  feiking  up  the  real  way  out  let  us  for  a  moment  look  at  some  of 
the  ways  that  do  not  lead  out.  Some  talk  of  annihilation  and  argue  that 
the  war  must  go  on  until  one  side  completely  effaces  the  other.  Annihila- 
tion is  a  big  word  and  the  annihilation  of  a  nation  a  very  difficult  task. 
Long  before  they  are  in  sight  of  annihilation  they  will  be  so  sick  of  blood- 
shed that  they  will  stop.  There  are  already  signs  of  sickness  now.  They 
have  been  striking  in  the  coal  mines  on  one  side  and  in  the  gun  factories 
on  the  other.  On  one  side  they  have  been  protesting  against  threatened 
conscription  and  on  the  other  against  the  doctrine  of  conquest.  No,  they 
will  not  carry  the  war  to  the  point  of  annihilation,  and  if  they  did  it 
would  be  a  crime  against  civilization.  If  they  do  not  know  each  other,  we 
know  them  all,  for  their  children  have  come  among  us  and  have  helped  to 
make  this  country  what  it  is.  We  know  that  these  belligerent  nations 
have  reached  their  present  positions  through  struggles  that  have  lasted 
for  centuries  and  that  each  one  has  a  priceless  contribution  to  make  to 
the  future  of  the  world.  God  might  have  made  all  the  flowers  of  one  color 
and  with  a  single  fragrance,  but  the  world  would  not  have  been  as  attrac- 
tive had  He  done  so.  And  so  God  might  have  made  all  the  nations  with 
one  history  and  a  single  language,  but  I  believe  that  the  world  is  better 
for  their  rivalries  and  their  competitions;  they  together  constitute  one 
resplendent  political  bouquet. 

Some  think  that  if  the  war  does  not  go  on  until  annihilation  takes  place 
it  must  at  least  go  on  until  one  side  is  so  completely  triumphant  that  it 
can  dictate  the  terms  of  peace,  compel  the  acceptance  of  those  terms,  and 
thereafter  maintain  the  peace  of  Europe  by  the  sword.  But  when  we  con- 
sider the  immense  masses  of  men  on  either  side  this  thought  is  almost  as 
idle  as  the  thought  of  annihilation,  and  it  will  not  brighten  the  future  if 
as  result  of  this  war  one  nation  or  group  of  nations  emerges  from  the 
conflict  master  on  land  or  sea. 

If  there  is  one  lesson  which  history  teaches  more  clearly  than  any 
other  it  is  that  nations  which  aspire  to  mere  physical  supremacy  have  no 
hope  of  immortality;  the  fact  that  they  put  their  faith  in  force  is  proof 
that  they  have  in  them  the  seeds  of  death.  The  pathway  of  human  progress 
is  lined  with  the  wrecks  of  empires  which,  when  at  the  zenith  of  their  power, 
thought  themselves  invincible. 

What  the  world  needs  is  not  a  despot  to  fix  the  terms  upon  which  the 
rest  shall  live;  its  great  need  is  that  these  nations  shall  be  brought  to- 
gether in  a  spirit  of  friendship  and  fellowship  that  they  may  co-operate  in 
working  out  the  destiny  of  Europe.  If  this  nation  has  any  influence,  that 
influence  must  be  exerted  to  bring  the  warring  nations  together  and  not 
to  encourage  them  in  the  false  hope  that  a  permanent  peace  can  be  built 
on  force  or  fear. 

All  of  the  rulers  of  the  nations  at  war  tell  us  that  they  did  not  want 
the  war  and  did  not  cause  it,  but  none  of  them  tell  us  "how  it  can  be 
brought  to  an  end.  Have  not  these  neutral  nations,  all  of  whom  bear 
burdens,  though  they  are  not  to  blame,  a  right  to  know  what  it  is  that, 
being  done,  peace  may  be  restored?  For  what  are  the  nations  fighting — 
not  in  general  terms  but  specifically?  Is  it  territory  that  they  want,  then 
how  much  and  where  is  it  located?  Is  it  blood  that  they  demand,  then  how 
much  more  blood  must  be  shed  to  avenge  the  blood  already  shed?  If  they 
will  not  answer  the  neutral  nations,  will  they  not  make  "answer  to  their 
own  people?  The  day  will  come  when  this  accumulated  sorrow  will  over- 


60  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

flow — when  this  pent-up  anguish  will  find  a  voice — and  then,  if  not  before, 
the  rulers  must  answer  that  stern  question  which  shakes  thrones  and  fixes 
the  farthermost  limits  of  arbitrary  power:  "Why  do  we  die?" 

Europe  has  had  machinery  for  war,  but  not  for  peace.  The  nations 
of  Europe  could  go  to  war  in  a  minute,  but  they  were  not  sufficiently  sup- 
plied with  machinery  for  the  adjustment  of  difficulties  that  defied  diplo- 
matic settlement.  And  we  can  not  be  harsh  in  our  criticism  because,  until 
recently,  this  nation  was  almost  as  poorly  supplied  as  the  European  nations 
with  the  machinery  for  the  preservation  of  peace.  Until  within  three  years 
our  best  treaties  were  those  known  as  the  "  Arbitration  Treaties "  and 
they  had  two  serious  defects.  First,  they  only  ran  five  years  and  then 
died.  And  when  one  of  these  treaties  died  it  had  to  be  renewed  by  the  same 
formalities  required  for  its  negotiation.  It  had  to  be  ratified  by  two-thirds 
of  the  Senate,  which  meant  that  though  the  President  might  desire  to 
continue  it  and  though  a  majority  of  the  Senate  might  desire  to  continue 
it,  the  extension  of  its  life  could  be  prevented  if  a  minority  of  the  Senate, 
more  than  one-third,  objected.  But  a  still  more  serious  defect  was  found 
in  the  fact  that  these  treaties  did  not  cover  all  questions — they  excepted 
questions  of  honor,  questions  of  independence,  vital  interests  and  interests 
of  third  parties,  the  very  questions  out  of  which  wars  are  apt  to  grow. 
When  a  man  is  angry  every  question  is  a  question  of  honor,  every  interest 
a  vital  interest.  Man  angry  is  a  very  different  animal  from  man  calm; 
when  a  man  is  angry  he  swaggers  about  and  talks  about  what  he  can  do, 
and  he  generally  overestimates  it.  When  he  is  calm  he  thinks  about  what 
he  ought  to  do  and  listens  to  the  voice  of  conscience. 

We  now  have  thirty  treaties  with  nations  representing  three-fourths 
of  the  world  and  these  treaties  cure  the  defects  of  which  I  have  spoken. 
In  the  first  place,  instead  of  dying  at  the  end  of  five  years  they  never  die. 
They  run  on  and  on  until  twelve  months  after  one  side  or  the  other  has 
asked  that  they  be  discontinued.  I  believe  that  neither  side  will  ever  ask 
that  these  treaties  be  discontinued.  I  have  such  faith  in  these  treaties  that 
I  believe  that  a  thousand  years  from  now  the  name  of  Woodrow  Wilson 
and  my  name  will  be  linked  together  in  the  capitals  of  the  world  and  that 
these  treaties  will  preserve  the  peace  of  our  nation  by  furnishing  machinery 
by  which  peace  can  be  preserved  with  honor. 

But  what  is  more  important  than  length  of  life,  these  treaties  contain 
no  exceptions;  they  cover  all  disputes  of  every  kind  and  character.  Each 
one  of  these  thirty  treaties  provides  that  every  dispute  that  defies  diplo- 
matic settlement,  if  not  by  some  other  treaty  submitted  for  final  settle- 
ment, must  be  submitted  to  an  international  commission  for  investigation 
and  report.  Each  one  of  these  thirty  treaties  also  provides  that  the  period 
of  investigation  may  last  a  year,  and  each  one  of  these  treaties  further 
provides  that  during  the  period  of  investigation  neither  side  shall  declare 
war  or  begin  hostilities.  Here  are  three  provisions,  new  to  treaty-making, 
which  reduce  war  between  us  and  the  contracting  parties  to  a  remote 
possibility. 

We  do  not  contend  that  war  is  made  impossible — I  only  wish  it  were 
possible  to  make  war  impossible.  But  in  order  to  secure  the  investigation 
of  all  questions  it  was  necessary  to  reserve  to  each  nation  the  right  of  in- 
dependent action  at  the  conclusion  of  the  investigation.  If  any  one  be- 
lieves that  war  may  sometimes  be  necessary,  let  him  find  consolation  in  the 
fact  that  every  one  of  these  treaties  specifically  reserves  the  right  of  our 
nation  to  go  to  war.  If  any  desire  war,  all  they  have  to  do  is  to  stir 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  61 

the  people  up  to  fever  heat  and  keep  them  there  for  a  year;  then  if  no 
other  way  out  is  found,  the  nation  is  at  liberty  to  fight  its  way  oui.  And 
I  so  much  believe  in  the  right  of  the  people  to  have  what  they  want  that 
I  admit  the  right  of  people  to  go  to  war  if  they  really  want  it.  But  I 
feel  as  a  North  Carolina  Congressman  expressed  himself,  that  if  we  are  to 
have  war  it  would  be  better  for  the  people  to  vote  it  upon  themselves  than 
to  have  others  vote  it  on  them.  If  there  is  any  question  upon  which  there 
should  be  a  referendum  vote,  it  is  the  question  of  peace  or  war  which  may 
mean  life  or  death  to  so  many  people.  And  if  we  have  a  referendum  vote 
on  war,  it  will  only  be  fair  that  the  women  shall  vote  as  well  as  the  men, 
for  women  bear  the  larger  portion  of  the  burden  in  time  of  war.  I  believe 
that  the  women  should  vote  on  all  questions,  but  if  they  vote  on  only  one, 
it  ought  to  be  at  an  election  which  decides  the  issue  between  peace  and  war. 
And  I  agree  with  the  North  Carolina  Congressman  on  another  matter. 
He  suggests  that  it  would  insure  deliberation  on  the  part  of  the  voters  if 
the  vote  was  taken  with  the  understanding  that  those  who  voted  for  war 
would  enlist  first;  and  that  those  who  voted  against  war  should  constitute 
a  great  reserve  army  which  would  not  be  called  into  service  until  after 
all  those  who  voted  for  war  had  had  a  chance  to  show  what  they  could  do. 
I  like  the  idea  and  I  venture  to  add  another  suggestion.  I  am  a  journalist, 
among  other  things;  whenever  any  one  asks  me  what  I  am,  my  answer  is, 
a  journalist.  I  am  proud  of  the  profession,  though  not  of  all  the  members 
of  it.  If  we  have  war,  I  shall  insist  in  the  name  of  the  journalists  of  the 
country  that  the  first  battle  line  shall  be  made  up  of  jingo  editors  that 
they  may  have  the  glory  of  dying  before  any  one  else  is  hurt. 

These  thirty  treaties  will,  in  my  judgment,  go  far  toward  preserving 
peace  and  I  believe  that  the  principle  ought  to  be  applied  to  all  nations: 
If  the  plan  is  good  enough  to  offer  to  all  nations — and  the  offer  has  never 
been  withdrawn;  if  the  plan  is  good  enough  to  be  entered  into  with  nations 
representing  one  billion  three  hundred  millions  of  people;  if  the  plan  is 
good  enough  to  be  endorsed  in  principle  by  Germany,  Austria  and  Belgium, 
countries  with  which  treaties  of  this  kind  have  not  yet  been  negotiated — 
it  is  good  enough  to  be  used  with  any  country  before  we  go  to  war  with 
that  country. 

But  I  will  go  a  step  further;  even  if  we  use  the  treaty  plan  and  it 
fails  to  secure  a  settlement — or  if  we  fail  to  use  it  and  reach  a  point  where 
we  must  decide,  either  to  go  into  this  war  or  to  postpone  final  settlement 
of  the  dispute  until  this  war  is  over — if  we  must  choose  between  these  two 
alternatives,  I  believe  it  would  be  the  part  of  wisdom  to  postpone  final 
settlement  until  the  war  is  over.  First,  because  postponement  would  make 
war  unnecessary,  and  that  would  be  a  sufficient  reason  for  postponing  it. 
We  would  have  no  difficulty  in  settling  any  dispute  which  we  now  have 
or  which  may  arise  during  the  war  but  for  the  fear  of  the  effect  of  the 
settlement  upon  the  war  itself. 

But  even  if  a  postponement  did  not  prevent  war,  it  would  be  better* 
to  have  our  war  after  this  war  is  over  than  during  this  war,  because  it 
would  then  be  our  own  war  with  the  country  with  which  we  had  our 
dispute  and  we  could  not  only  go  into  the  war  at  pleasure,  but  come  out  at 
will.  But  this  war  is  not  our  war — it  is  everybody's  war — and  if  we  go 
into  it,  we  can  not  come  out  without  consulting  others,  and  others  would 
determine  also  what  we  would  fight  for  while  we  were  in — and  God  forbid 
that  we  shall  ever  tie  ourselves  to  the  quarrels,  rivalries  and  ambitions  of 
the  nations  of  Europe. 


62  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

And  now  bear  with  me  for  a  moment  while  I  present  three  reasons  why 
it  is  imperatively  necessary  that  we  shall  not  enter  this  war.  I  shall  not 
present  these  reasons  in  the  order  of  their  importance,  rather  in  inverse 
order.  First,  no  one  can  tell  what  it  would  cost  us  in  dollars  to  enter 
this  war.  It  is  not  like  any  other  war  and  therefore  estimates  based  upon 
the  past  would  be  of  little  value.  Let  those  who  glibly  talk  of  war  give 
us  a  guess  as  to  what  it  would  cost  to  take  part  in  this  war  and  then  give 
a  warranty  that  their  guess  is  high  enough.  Many  predictions  have  been 
made  in  regard  to  this  war,  but  so  far  none  have  been  verified.  Would  it 
cost  one  billion?  One  of  the  jingo  papers  insisted  a  few  weeks  ago  that 
Congress  should  be  called  together  immediately  to  vote  a  credit  of  one 
billion  dollars  in  anticipation  of  a  possible  war.  It  would  be  more  likely 
to  cost  five  billions  or  ten,  but  even  if  it  cost  ten  billions  that  would  not 
be  the  greatest  objection  to  war.  There  are  two  other  objections  that  are 
more  important. 

The  second  objection  is  based  upon  the  possible  loss  of  life.  How  many 
men  would  it  cost  us  to  take  part  in  this  war?  A  hundred  thousand? 
They  have  already  killed  over  two  millions;  one  hundred  thousand  would 
hardly  be  enough  for  our  quota  in  such  a  war.  If  we  go  into  this  war  we 
can  not  go  in  in  a  stingy  way  or  as  a  miserly  nation.  If  it  is  manly 
to  go  in,  it  will  be  manly  to  play  a  man's  part  and  be  prodigal  in  blood 
and  money. 

The  danger  of  war  with  Germany  now  seems  to  be  passed  and  the 
country  is  relieved  to  have  the  American  position  in  the  submarine  con- 
troversy accepted.  But  while  there  was  a  possibility  of  war — while  the 
question  was  acute — some  of  our  American  papers  were  insisting  that  we 
ought  to  go  to  war  with  Germany  at  any  cost.  I  do  not  believe  that  our 
people  would  be  willing  to  send  one  hundred  thousand  brave  Americans  to 
death  because  a  little  more  than  a  hundred  took  ships  that  they  ought  not 
to  have  taken  into  danger  zones  about  which  they  fully  understood.  It 
is  not  that  our  people  did  not  have  a  right  to  take  those  ships.  Under 
international  law  they  did  have  a  right  to  sail  on  those  ships,  but  great 
international  questions  can  not  be  settled  on  naked  legal  rights.  There  are 
duties  as  well  as  rights.  Let  me  illustrate.  Every  young  man,  when  he 
becomes  of  age,  has  a  legal  right  to  leave  his  home  and  make  a  career  for 
himself.  He  is  not  compelled  to  consider  either  the  wishes  or  the  needs  of 
his  parents.  But,  fortunately,  most  of  our  young  men  put  their  duty  to 
their  parents  above  their  legal  rights  and  inquire  about  the  welfare  of  the 
old  folks  before  they  leave  home. 

And  so  every  American  citizen  has  duties  as  well  as  rights.  Do  you 
say  that  it  is  the  duty  ©f  this  government  to  take  its  army  and  follow 
an  American  citizen  around  the  world  and  protect  his  rights?  That  is  only 
one  side  of  the  proposition.  The  obligations  of  citizenship  are  reciprocal. 
It  is  the  duty  of  the  citizen  to  consider  his  country's  safety  and  the  welfare 
of  his  fellowmen.  In  time  of  war  the  government  can  take  the  son  from 
his  widowed  mother  and  compel  him  to  give  his  life  to  help  his  country 
out  of  war.  If,  in  time  of  war,  the  government  can  compel  its  citizens  to 
die  in  order  to  bring  the  war  to  an  end,  the  government  can,  in  time  of 
peace,  say  to  its  citizens  that  they  shall  not,  by  taking  unnecessary  risks, 
drag  their  country  into  war  and  compel  this  sacrifice  of  their  countrymen. 

In  time  of  riot  a  mayor  has  authority  to  keep  the  people  of  his  town 
off  of  the  streets  until  order  is  restored.  Has  not  the  government  of  a  nation 
like  ours  as  much  authority  as  the  mayor  of  a  city?  When  the  world  is 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  63 

in  riot  our  government  has,  I  believe,  a  right  to  say  to  its  citizens :  "  You 
shall  not  embarrass  the  government  in  dealing  with  this  question.  You 
shall  not  add  to  your  nation's  perils.  You  must  keep  out  of  the  danger 
zone  until  your  government  restores  order  and  compels  respect  for  the  rights 
of  American  citizens."  But  suppose  it  cost  us  not  one  hundred  thousand 
men  but  half  a  million  or  a  million.  That  is  not  the  greatest  objection  to 
the  war. 

Great  as  is  the  first  objection,  based  on  the  possible  cost  in  money, 
and  greater  still  as  is  the  second  objection,  based  upon  the  possible  cost  in 
blood,  there  is  a  still  greater  objection;  viz.,  that  we  can  not  become  a 
belligerent  and  at  the  same  time  remain  neutral. 

We  stand  at  the  head  of  the  neutral  nations;  the  world  looks  to  us  to 
act  as  mediator  when  the  time  for  mediation  comes.  If,  for  any  reason, 
no  matter  what  that  reason  may  be,  we  enter  this  war,  we  must  step  down 
fronTour  high  position  and  turn  over  to  some  other  nation  an  opportunity 
such  as  never  came  to  any  nation  before  and  may  never  come  again! 

Then,  too,  we  are  the  next  of  kin  to  all  the  nations  now  at  war;  they 
are  blood  of  our  blood  and  bone  of  our  bone.  Not  a  soldier  boy  falls  on 
any  battlefield  over  yonder  but  the  wail  of  sorrow  in  his  home  finds  an 
echo  at  some  American  fireside,  and  these  nations  have  a  right  to  expect 
that  we  will  remain  the  friend  of  all,  and  be  in  position  to  play  the  part 
of  a  friend  when  a  friend  can  aid. 

Some  nation  must  lift  the  world  out  of  the  black  night  of  war  into 
the  light  of  that  day  when  an  enduring  peace  can  be  built  on  love  and 
brotherhood,  and  I  crave  that  honor  for  this  nation.  More  glorious  than 
any  page  of  history  that  has  yet  been  written  will  be  the  page  that  records 
our  claim  to  the  promise  made  to  the  peacemakers. 

This  is  the  day  for  which  the  ages  have  been  waiting.  For  nineteen 
hundred  years  the  gospel  of  the  Prince  of  Peace  has  been  making  its 
majestic  march  around  the  world,  and  during  these  centuries  the  philosophy 
of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  has  become  more  and  more  the  rule  of  daily 
life.  It  only  remains  to  lift  that  code  of  morals  from  the  level  of  the 
individual  and  make  it  real  in  the  law  of  nations,  and  ours  is  the  nation 
best  prepared  to  set  the  example.  We  are  less  hampered  by  precedent  than 
other  nations  and  therefore  more  free  to  act.  I  appreciate  the  value  of 
precedent — what  higher  tribute  can  I  pay  it  than  to  say  that  it  is  as  uni- 
versal as  the  law  of  gravitation  and  as  necessary  to  stability?  And  yet 
the  law  of  gravitation  controls  only  inanimate  nature — everything  that 
lives  is  in  constant  combat  with  the  law  of  gravitation.  The  tiniest  insect 
that  creeps  upon  the  ground  wins  a  victory  over  it  every  time  it  moves; 
even  the  slender  blade  of  grass  sings  a  song  of  triumph  over  this  universal 
law  as  it  lifts  itself  up  toward  the  sun.  So  every  step  in  human  progress 
breaks  the  law  of  precedent.  Precedent  lives  in  the  past — it  relies  on 
memory,  because  a  thing  never  was,  precedent  declares  that  it  can  never 
be.  Progress  walks  by  faith  and  dares  to  try  the  things  that  ought  to  be. 
This,  too,  in  the  leading  Christian  nation.  We  give  more  money  every 
year  to  carry  the  gospel  to  those  who  live  under  other  flags  than  any  other 
nation  now  living  or  that  has  lived.  The  two  reasons  combine  to  fix  the 
eyes  of  the  world  upon  us  as  the  one  nation  which  is  at  liberty  to  lead  the 
way  from  the  blood-stained  methods  of  the  past  out  into  the  larger  and 
better  day. 

We  must  not  disappoint  the  hopes  which  our  ideals  and  achievements 
have  excited.     If  I  know  the  heart  of  the  American  people  they  are  not 


64  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

willing  that  this  supreme  opportunity  shall  pass  by  unimproved.  No,  the 
metropolitan  press  is  not  the  voice  of  the  nation;  you  can  no  more  measure 
the  sentiment  of  the  peace-loving  masses  by  the  froth  of  the  jingo  press 
than  you  can  measure  the  ocean's  depths  by  the  foam  upon  its  waves. 


THE  NATION'S  PREPAREDNESS 

BY 

Hon.  CLAUDE  KITCHIN 

(House  Leader) 
Statement  given  to  Press  of  North  Carolina,  November  20,  1915. 

Mr.  Editor: 

The  Seven  Seas  Magazine,  the  organ  of  the  Navy  League  ( the  organiza- 
tion which  has  created,  by  deception  and  misrepresentation,  the  apparently 
big  sentiment  for  the  militarism  and  navalism  now  proposed,  and  which 
seems  to  have  stampeded  many  patriotic  and  usually  level-headed  people), 
declared  in  its  October  issue  that  I  had  the  right  "  to  vote  for  or  against " 
the  preparedness  measure,  but  that  I  had  "  neither  the  right  nor  should  he 
(I)  be  allowed  even  to  discuss  it  in  the  House,"  etc.  I  trust,  however, 
that  the  press  of  my  State,  though  most  of  it  differ  widely  with  me,  will 
not  refuse  the  privilege  which  I  ask,  to  express  through  it  to  the  people 
some  of  the  reasons  for  my  position  and  give  some  of  the  facts  with  respect 
to  the  question  which  has  been  withheld  from,  or  certainly  not  given  to 
the  public.  I  ask  this  privilege,  with  confidence  that  it  will  be  granted, 
especially  in  view  of  the  fact  that  many  of  the  State  papers  have  severely 
criticized  me,  some  going  to  the  extent  of  bitterly  denouncing  me.  I  have 
no  criticism  to  make  of  the  press  and  the  people  in  the  State  who  differ 
with  me.  Having  heard  only  one  side,  and  owing  to  the  tons  of  literature 
of  deception  and  misrepresentation  on  the  subject  being  poured  out  daily 
to  the  people  by  the  metropolitan  press  and  magazines — many,  perhaps, 
innocently — and  by  the  so-called  "  Patriotic  Societies,"  of  which  the  Navy 
League  is  the  head,  it  is  but  natural  that  a  large  majority  of  the  people 
should  oppose  my  position.  With  your  permission,  I  shall  now  proceed  to 
give  some  of  the  facts  and  reasons  which  impel  me  to  oppose  the  big  mili- 
tary and  naval  programme  which  will  be  proposed  to  Congress. 

1.  AS  TO  THE  ACTUAL  CONDITION  OF  OUR  NAVY. 

All  the  talk  and  writings  by  the  press  and  the  so-called  "Patriotic 
Societies "  about  our  "  utter  helplessness,"  our  "  dangerous  unprepared- 
ness,"  our  "  defenseless  condition,"  our  "  growing  weakness,"  our  "  having 
fallen  to  the  third  or  fourth  grade  of  inferiority  in  naval  strength,"  etc., 
is  pure  tommy-rot,  based  not  on  a  single  fact. 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  65 

Let  it  be  first  understood  that  in  the  "  Preparedness  "  programme  the 
Navy  of  Great  Britain  is  eliminated.  This  was  so  testified  by  the  Secretary 
of  the  Navy,  Admiral  Fletcher,  and  other  naval  experts,  and  even  by  Hob- 
son,  in  the  hearings  before  the  Naval  Committee  at  the  last  session  of 
Congress,  all  declaring  that  we  do  not  need  or  desire  a  navy  as  strong  as 
hers.  Notwithstanding  the  metropolitan  press,  magazine  writers  and  the 
"Patriotic  Societies"  and  our  Navy  Year-Brook  (which  was  exposed  in 
the  last  Congress,  and  will  be  so  exposed  in  the  next,  as  unreliable  and 
misleading),  the  fact  is,  that  we  have  built  and  building  the  strongest  and 
most  powerful  navy  in  the  world,  except  that  of  Great  Britain  (which  is 
eliminated  as  above  stated).  Our  navy  is  stronger  than  that  of  Germany, 
far  superior  to  that  of  France,  more  than  twice  as  strong  as  that  of  Japan 
or  of  any  of  the  other  nations.  Admiral  Fletcher,  the  highest  active  officer 
in  the  navy,  commander  of  the  Atlantic  Fleet,  the  man  who  will  have  to 
do  the  fighting  if  any  is  to  be  done  (whose  judgment  on  naval  subjects  the 
Secretary  of  the  Navy,  before  the  Naval  Committee,  declared  he  had  sooner 
take  than  that  of  any  man  in  the  world),  expressly  declared,  at  the  naval 
hearings  during  the  last  session  of  Congress,  that  we  had  a  navy,  "  superior 
to  that  of  Germany  or  any  other  nation,  except  Great  Britain"  In  answer 
to  the  question,  "  If  in  a  war  with  Germany,  could  our  navy  successfully 
resist  that  of  Germany?"  he  answered,  "Yes"  Captain  Winterhalter, 
another  naval  expert,  testified :  "  Judge  Witherspoon  has  proved  that  our 
navy  is  superior  to  that  of  Germany  and  I  agree  with  him."  Admiral 
Badger,  ex-Commander  of  the  Atlantic  Fleet  (a  member  of  the  General 
Board  of  the  Navy),  declared  that  no  one  had  ever  heard  him  say  that 
"  Germany  had  a  superior  navy  to  ours." 

The  facts  of  record,  the  tests  laid  down  by  naval  experts  here  and 
abroad,  and  the  naval  authorities  of  the  world  (all  of  which  I  have  before 
me  as  I  write)  confirm  the  truth  of  this  testimony. 

The  armored  fleet  of  Germany,  consisting  of  battleships,  dreadnaughts 
and  predreadnaughts,  armored  cruisers  and  battle  cruisers  (built  and 
building)  in  number  is  fifty- two  (to  say  nothing  of  the  vessels  lost  since 
January  1,  1915).  The  fleet  of  the  United  States,  of  the  same  vessels,  is 
in  number  fifty-six,  with  over  40,000  more  tonnage.  (Number  and  tonnage, 
however,  are  not  the  criterion  of  superiority.)  Of  twenty  of  Germany's 
battleships  listed  by  our  Navy  Year-Brook,  sixteen  are  not  able  to  go  mere 
than  1000  miles  from  base  to  engage  in  naval  warfare.  Not  one  of  the 
sixteen  carries  coal  enough  to  go  from  Hamburg  or  Bremen  to  within  five 
hundred  miles  of  New  York  and  return  (to  say  nothing  about  being  em- 
ployed in  a  naval  engagement).  The  Oregon,  which  some  of  our  naval 
experts  say  is  obsolete,  and  not  listed  by  our  Navy  Year-Book  (the  Indiana 
and  Massachusetts  not  listed  also),  in  every  characteristic  of  a  fighting 
ship  (bigger  guns,  heavier  armor,  stronger  "ship)  is  far  superior  to  any 
one  of  the  twenty  German  battleships  listed  by  our  Year-Book.  Four  of 
the  German  ships  listed  by  our  Year-Book  as  dreadnaughts  are  in  reality 
not  dreadnaughts,  and  are  shown  by  one  of  the  highest  naval  authorities 
in  the  world  (Jane's  Fighting  Ships)  to  be  defective,  unsuccessful  ships, 
and  so  known  to  be  by  every  student  of  naval  affairs.  The  last  five  dread- 
naughts  authorized  by  Congress  are  superior  to  any  six  dreadnaughts 
Germany  has,  built  or  building.  Our  ships  are  better,  larger,  stronger 
and  more  heavily  armored.  Our  guns  are  larger,  stronger  and  more  effec- 
tive. Of  the  big  guns  of  the  ships,  twelve  inches  and  over,  we  have  284, 
while  Germany  has  only  194  (built  and  building). 


66  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOI 

If  the  navy  of  Great  Britain  is  to  be  eliminated  in  the  "  Prepared- 
ness "  programme,  which  our  naval  experts  say  it  should  be,  and  if  we 
have  a  navy  now  superior  to  that  of  Germany  or  any  other  nation  in  the 
world,  except  Great  Britain,  for  whom  or  against  whom  do  we  propose 
to  prepare  by  the  fabulous  increase  of  our  naval  appropriations  which  the 
proposed  programme  requires? 

We  are  prepared. 

Instead  of  "  our  navy  growing  weaker,"  as  the  metropolitan  press,  the 
"  Patriotic  Societies  "  and  the  jingoes  and  war  traffickers  would  have  the 
people  believe,  it  is  growing  bigger,  stronger,  more  efficient  and  better 
equipped  every  year.  In  the  two  years  of  Wilson's  administration  the 
naval  building  programme  authorized  is  twice  as  large  and  costly  as  the 
last  two  years  of  Taft's  administration  and  larger  and  more  costly  by 
$8,000,000  than  the  entire  four  years  of  Roosevelt's  last  term,  and  prac- 
tically as  large  and  costly  as  the  entire  four  years  of  Taft's  administra- 
tion. There  is  today  over  50  per  cent  more  construction  going  on  for  our 
navy  than  on  the  1st  day  of  March,  1913,  or  at  any  other  time  in  the 
history  of  our  country.  We  have  nearly  100  per  cent  more  torpedoes, 
mines,  mine  layers,  powder  and  other  munitions  than  we  had  on  the  1st 
day  of  March,  1913,  and  steadily  increasing  them.  We  have  under  Mr. 
Wilson's  and  Mr.  Daniel's  administration,  for  the  first  time  in  years,  the 
full  complement  of  enlisted  men  authorized  by  law. 

We  are  preparing. 

In  view  of  the  foregoing  facts,  was  not  President  Wilson  right  when 
he  said  in  his  message  to  Congress,  December,  1914,  in  opposing  the  pro- 
gramme of  the  Hobsons  and  Gardners:  "Let  there  be  no  misconception. 
The  country  has  been  misinformed.  We  have  not  been  negligent  of  national 
defense." 

2.     AS   TO   THE   ENORMITY   OF   THE   PROPOSED   PROGRAMME—- 
WHAT IT  IS: 

The  heretofore  large  and  growing  expenditures  for  our  Navy  had  aroused 
the  people  of  the  country  into  asking,  "  Where  shall  it  end  ?  "  Secretary 
Daniels,  in  his  report  to  the  last  session  of  Congress,  December,  1914,  said 
(and  he  was  but  substantially  repeating  what  had  been  said  in  the  British 
Parliament,  the  German  Reichstag,  the  French  Assembly,  and  by  promi- 
nent statesmen  the  world  over  relative  to  the  armament  expenditures  of 
their  respective  countries  for  the  last  several  years )  :  "  The  naval  appro- 
priations in  our  own  country  have  doubled  in  a  dozen  years  and  have  gone 
up  by  leaps  and  bounds  in  other  countries.  If  this  mad  rivalry  in  con- 
struction goes  on  the  burden  will  become  too  heavy  for  any  nation  to  bear." 
In  his  report  of  December,  1913,  he  says:  "The  growing  cost  of  dread- 
naughts,  of  powder  and  of  everything  that  makes  an  efficient  navy  gives 
reason  to  pause.  The  heavy  expense  commands  national  and  international 
consideration.  Ten  years  ago  our  largest  battleships  cost  $5,288,000.  The 
next  dreadnaught  will  cost  $14,044,000."  (The  dreadnaughts  hereafter 
to  be  authorized  will  cost  from  $18,000,000  to  $20,000,000,  and  in  an 
interview  the  Secretary  says  all  ship  materials  and  munitions  of  war  have 
gone  up  over  30  per  sent. )  He  asks,  "  When  is  this  accelerating  expendi- 
ture to  be  reduced?  ...  If  it  is  not  hastened  by  appeals  for  the  peaceful 
settlement  of  national  differences,  the  day  is  not  far  distant  when  the 
growing  burdens  of  taxation  for  excessive  war  and  naval  expenditures  will 
call  a  halt." 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  67 

Now,  in  the  face  of  the  deplorable  truth  recited  by  the  Secretary;  in 
the  face  of  the  fact  that  we  have  a  Navy  superior  to  that  of  Germany  or 
any  other  nation,  except  that  of  Great  Britain;  in  the  face  of  the  fact  that 
our  navy  is  growing  larger,  stronger  and  better  equipped  than  ever  before; 
in  the  face  of  the  fact,  as  the  President  declared  both  in  his  message  to 
Congress  December  last  and  in  his  recent  Manhattan  Club  speech,  "  We 
are  threatened  from  no  quarter"  the  proposed  "  Preparedness "  programme 
at  one  bound — one  year — increases  our  already  immensely  large  naval  ap- 
propriations more  than  our  total  increase  for  the  last  fourteen  years;  more 
than  the  increase  by  Germany  the  whole  fifteen  years  preceding  the  Euro- 
pean war,  and  more  than  the  combined  increase  of  all  the  nations  in  the 
world  in  any  one  year  in  their  history  (in  times  of  peace)  ! 

The  five-year  programme  increases  our  naval  appropriation  over  foriy 
times  more  than  the  increase  by  Germany  in  five  years  preceding  the 
European  war;  and  $200,000,000  more  than  the  combined  increase  of  all 
the  nations  in  the  world  for  the  five  years  preceding  the  European  war; 
and  over  $50,000,000  more  than  the  combined  increase  of  att  the  nations 
in  the  world  for  the  whole  period  of  ten  year®  immediately  preceding  the 
European  war!! 

Add  to  this  the  fact  that  prior  to  the  beginning  of  the  European  war 
we  were  expending  annually  on  our  navy  from  $20,000,000  to  $30,000,000 
more  than  Germany  or  any  other  nation  (except  Great  Britain)  was  ex- 
pending on  its  navy. 

For  the  ten  years  preceding  the  European  war  we  had  expended  on 
our  Navy  over  $300,000,000  more  than  Germany  or  any  other  nation  (ex- 
cept Great  Britain)  had  expended  on  its  navy!  And  yet  the  metropolitan 
press,  the  magazine  writers,  the  "  Patriotic  Societies "  and  the  jingoes 
and  war  traffickers  would  frighten  the  country  into  the  belief  that  we 
have  a  little,  puny,  eggshell  of  a  navy! 

The  five-year  naval  programme  calls  for  an  increase  of  $500,000,000 — 
$100,000,000  increase  a  year — which,  including  the  inevitable  incidental 
expenses  for  expanding  the  whole  naval  establishment  in  order  to  accom- 
modate the  programme,  will  reach  $600,000,000  or  over  by  the  time  the 
five  years  expire ! !  This  is  all  extra — in  addition  to  the  large  appropria- 
tions we  have  been  annually  making. 

The  army  four-year  programme  demands  $450,000,000  increase,  over 
$100,000,000  a  year  extra,  being  an  increase  of  more  than  100  per  cent. 
over  our  annual  Army  appropriations!  All  extra  appropriation,  be  it  re- 
membered. Extra  taxes  must  be  paid  by  the  people,  be  it  remembered! 

Before  leaving  the  subject  of  the  enormity  of  the  proposed  programme, 
I  desire  to  make  a  further  observation: 

At  the  expiration  of  the  five-year  period  for  the  programme  this  country 
will  then  be  expending  on  its  Navy  and  Army  more  than  any  nation  in 
the  world  in  times  of  peace  ever  expended  on  its  Army  and  Navy;  more 
than  England,  with  her  navalism,  more  than  Russia  or  Germany,  with 
their  huge  militarism.  At  the  beginning  of  the  European  war  Germany 
was  expending  for  past  wars  and  preparations  for  wars  (on  its  army  and 
Navy)  55  per  cent,  of  the  total  amount  of  revenues  collected,  Japan  45 
per  cent.,  Great  Britain  37  per  cent.,  France  35  per  cent.,  the  United  States 
over  60  per  cent.  With  the  proposed  military  and  naval  programme  en- 
acted into  law  the  United  States  will  be  expending  over  70  per  cent,  of 
its  total  revenues — that  is,  out  of  every  $100.00  collected  from  the  people 
over  $70.00  will  go  into  militarism  and  navalism,  including  pensions,  leav- 


68  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

ing  less  than  $30.00  for  all  other  functions  of  our  government  and  for  all 
other  benefits  of  the  people. 

3.  AS  TO  THE  CONDITION  OF  OUR  TREASURY  AND  ITS  REVE- 
NUES AND  EXTRA  TAXATION  REQUIRED. 

The  condition  of  our  treasury  and  our  revenue  and  the  necessities 
of  the  government  are  less  able  now  to  permit  increased  appropriations 
than  ever  before.  The  treasury  has  felt  most  heavily  the  burden  of  the 
present  war.  Our  general  surplus  fund  of  over  $150,000,000  is  monthly 
idisappearing;  our  deficits  are  annual  and  monthly;  our  revenues  have 
diminished;  we  have  strained  the  nerves  of  the  government  to  get  sufficient 
revenue  to  meet  its  ordinary  expenses;  we  have  been  forced  to  levy  an 
emergency  tax;  our  deficits  still  exist;  our  revenues  still  insufficient. 
After  the  expiration  of  the  present  emergency  tax  December  31,  1915,  we 
will  be  faced  with  deficits  for  the  coming  year  of  at  least  $117,000,000. 
This  is  upon  the  assumption  that  not  a  dollar  of  increased  appropriation 
will  be  made  for  any  purpose  over  the  last  year's  appropriation  (yet  I 
understand  that  there  will  be  from  $30,000,000  to  $40,000,000  increase 
asked  other  than  the  Army  and  Navy  increase).  This  $117,000,000  deficit 
is  upon  the  further  assumption  that  Congress  will  repeal  the  sugar  free 
list  provision  of  the  Underwood  Act,  which  goes  into  effect  May  1st,  1915 
(which  itself  will  impose  $100,000,000  burden  upon  the  people).  For  this 
programme  of  militarism  and  navalism — euphoniously  called  by  its  advocates 
"  national  defense  "  or  "  preparedness  "  programme — $200,000,000  annual 
increase  of  taxation  is  required.  This,  added  to  the  deficit  above  men- 
tioned, makes  $317,000,000  additional  annual  taxation  (even  with  the  free 
sugar  clause  repealed),  which  must  be  raised,  on  the  assumption,  too,  there 
will  not  be  a  dollar  increase  in  any  other  appropriation  over  that  of  last 
year.  This  is  three  times  larger  annual  increase  than  was  ever  required 
or  raised  (and  practically  all  of  it  must  be  raised  by  direct  or  excise  taxes) 
than  at  any  time  in  the  history  of  our  government;  except  during  the 
Civil  War.  No  man  in  the  Administration  or  in  the  Ways  and  Means 
Committee,  although  for  months  they  have  wearied  their  wits  over  it,  has 
yet  been  able  to  solve  even  the  beginning  of  the  problem  of  raising  this 
enormous  increase  of  revenue.  I  have  had  hundreds  of  suggestions  as  to 
how  to  raise  it.  All  the  suggestions  combined  would  not  begin  to  raise 
the  amount.  Every  suggestion  has  been,  however,  to  raise  the  tax  on  the 
other  fellow  and  on  the  other  fellow's  business  or  product  and  not  on  his. 
When  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  begins  to  attempt  to  frame  measures 
for  raising  the  revenue  and  especially  when  the  people  begin  to  pay  the 
taxes  for  this  enormous  increase,  they  will  then,  perhaps,  realize  what  the 
programme  means.  I  have  had  experience  enough  with  taxation  to  know 
that  those  who  are  howling  most  loudly  now  for  the  big  Army  and  Navy 
programme  will  protest  and  howl  most  wildly  against  any  measure  which 
may  be  attempted  or  proposed  for  increase  of  taxes. 

4.     THE  BIG,  OVERREACHING  OBJECTION  TO  THE  PROGRAMME. 

The  huge  burden,  heretofore  unheard  of  or  undreamed  of,  which  this 
fabulous  increase  of  appropriations  for  the  Army  and  Navy  will  place  upon 
the  taxpayers  can,  and  will  have  to  be  borne,  in  spite  of  their  murmurs 
and  protests,  which  will  surely  come  in  the  future.  This  of  itself  to  me 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  69 

is  a  cruel  wrong,  especially  under  the  conditions  and  situation  of  our  coun- 
try and  our  Navy,  as  I  have  above  outlined. 

But  the  big,  overreaching  objection  to  this  stupendous  programme  is 
that  this  sudden,  radical  and  revolutionary  move  for  big  war  preparation 
on  our  part  is  going  to  shock  the  civilized  world,  and  whatever  be  the  out- 
come of  the  present  war,  will  alarm  the  world  again  into  an  armed  camp. 
It  will  postpone  for  generations  the  day  of  universal  peace  for  which  all 
Christendom  has  been  praying.  It  will  deprive  this  government,  through 
its  President,  of  the  greatest  opportunity  to  serve  mankind  that  ever  came 
to  nation  or  to  man,  in  the  final  negotiation  of  peace  terms  among  the  I 
belligerents,  to  lay  the  basis  of  perpetual  international  peace. 

The  militarists  and  war  traffickers  of  every  nation  in  the  world  will  l 
point  to  our  conduct  as  an  example  and  a  cause  why  big  war  preparations 
and  big  armaments  should  be  renewed  on  a  larger  scale  than  ever  before, 
and  its  consummation  will  only  be  limited  by  the  ability  of  the  nations 
appealed  to.  If  we  take  this  step  every  nation  will  suspect — in  fact,  every 
nation  will  feel  convinced,  and  no  argument  of  our  government  can  dissi- 
pate such  conviction — that  our  country  in  this  tremendous  step  has  other 
designs  than  mere  self-defense.  Every  nation  will  absolutely  know  that 
no  such  step  or  measure  is  necessary.  The  world  will  be  convinced,  in  spite 
of  our  protestations,  that  we  are  preparing,  as  the  Seven  Seas  Magazine, 
the  organ  of  the  Navy  League,  advocated  in  its  last  issue  (November) 
for  wars  of  conquest.  This  organ  of  this  so-called  patriotic  society  in  its 
same  issue  boldly  broadcasts  throughout  our  country  the  savage,  barbarous 
sentiment  which  I  quote:  "There  should  be  no  doubt  that  even  with  all 
possible  moral  refinements  it  is  the  absolute  right  of  a  nation  to  live  to 
its  fullest  intensity,  to  expand,  to  found  colonies,  to  get  richer  and  richer 
by  any  proper  means,  such  as  armed  conquest.  Such  expansion  as  an  aim 
is  an  inalienable  right  and  in  the  case  of  the  United  States  it  is  a  par- 
ticular duty."  This  organ  of  the  Navy  League,  the  organization,  as  I  said 
before,  which  has,  by  organized  effort,  created  the  sentiment  of  our  people 
for  a  big  militarism  and  navalism,  is  but  giving  the  people  of  th;^  country 
and  of  the  world  an  earnest  of  what  we  are  to  expect  when  this  programme 
is  enacted  into  law. 

The  world,  even  among  the  belligerents  of  the  present  war,  is  already- 
looking  with  grave  suspicion  and  alarm  upon  this  colossal  step.  Since 
writing  the  above,  in  confirmation  of  it,  the  morning  papers  bring  to  us 
the  speech  of  Lord  Rosebery,  made  at  the  London  University  on  the  night 
of  November  the  16th,  from  which  I  quote:  "I  know  nothing  more  dis- 
heartening than  the  announcement  recently  made  that  the  United  States — 
the  one  great  country  left  in  the  world  free  from  the  hideous,  bloody  burden 
of  war — is  about  to  embark  upon  the  building  of  a  huge  armada.  It  means 
that  the  burden  will  continue  upon  the  other  nations,  and  be  increased  exactly 
in  proportion  to  the  fleet  of  the  United  States.  I  confess  that  it  is  a  dis- 
heartening prospect  that  the  United  States,  so  remote  from  European  con- 
flict, should  voluntarily  in  these  days  take  up  the  burden,  which,  after 
this  war,  will  be  found  to  have  broken,  or  almost  broken,  our  backs." 

5.  AS  TO  THE  FEARS  OF  OUR  PEOPLE. 

In  the  hope  of  allaying  to  some  extent  the  alarmed  state  of  mind  and 
the  fears  of  our  people,  provoked  by  the  European  war,  and  aggravated  and 
intensified  by  the  organized  efforts  of  the  so-called  "Patriotic  Societies" 


70  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

and  the  war  traffickers,  I  desire  to  make  a  few  observations.  With  the 
experience  of  the  present  war,  which  we  are  daily  observing,  even  if  our 
fleet  were  not  half  as  big  as  it  is  (and  I  have  shown  that  it  is  superior 
to  that  of  any  other  nation  in  the  world,  except  that  of  Great  Britain), 
it  would  be  impossible,  notwithstanding  the  jingoes  and  the  war  traffickers 
and  the  press,  for  Germany  or  any  other  country  to  ever  bombard  or  land 
a  soldier  on  our  coast,  provided  we  were  equipped  with  mines  and  sub- 
marines. With  these  we  are  most  rapidly  equipping  ourselves.  England 
has  a  navy  two  and  one-half  times  as  strong  as  that  of  Germany.  England 
and  France  have  a  fleet  more  than  three  times  as  strong  as  that  of  Ger- 
many. Take  a  map  and  you  will  see  that  the  German  seacoast  on  the 
North  Sea  is  practically  at  the  head  of  the  English  Channel,  within  less 
than  300  miles  of  London,  and  has  several  miles  of  seacoast  along  the 
Baltic.  The  bulk  of  the  English  and  French  fleet  is  now,  and  has  been, 
within  less  than  a  day's  run  of  the  German  coast.  If  England  could 
bombard  or  land  on  the  coast  of  Germany,  on  the  North  Sea  or  on  the 
Baltic  Sea,  the  war  would  end  in  sixty  days.  Germany  would  have  to 
withdraw  from  France  to  protect  her  own  soil.  Why  does  not  the  fleet  of 
the  Allies,  nearly  four  times  as  strong,  go  in  and  destroy  the  little  fleet  of 
Germany,  bombard  her  seacoast  at  once,  land  an  army,  etc.  ?  Certainly  not 
because  of  a  little  German  fleet  already  bottled  up,  one-fourth  as  large, 
but  because  of  mines  and  submarines.  Now,  look  at  the  map  again  and 
see  how  the  Russian  coast  and  the  German  coast  compare  and  how  they 
adjoin  along  the  Baltic  Sea ;  Germany  has  control  of  the  Baltic,  even  against 
the  fleet  of  the  Allies.  Germany  has  a  fleet  four  times  as  large  as  that  of 
Russia.  What  keeps  Germany  away  from  the  Russian  coast?  Why  doesn't 
Germany,  with  a  fleet  four  times  as  strong,  destroy  the  Russian  fleet,  bom- 
bard her  seaport  towns  and  land  an  army?  If  she  could  do  this,  the  war 
would  end  in  sixty  days. 

Russia  would  be  forced  to  a  separate  peace  in  spite  of  her  agreement 
with  the  Allies.  Certainly  it  is  not  the  little  one-fourth  size  fleet  she  has, 
but  because  of  mines  and  submarines.  If  Germany,  with  her  fleet  not  one- 
third  as  strong  as  that  of  the  Allies,  does  not  fear  the  bombardment  of  her 
coast  or  the  landing  of  an  army  by  the  Allies,  when  within  less  than  200 
miles,  and  if  Russia,  with  her  little  fleet  one-fourth  as  large  as  that  of 
Germany,  is  not  afraid  of  Germany  bombarding  her  coast  and  landing  an 
army  on  her  shores,  why  in  the  name  of  common  sense  should  any  man, 
woman  or  child  in  the  United  States  fear  that  Germany  or  any  other  nation 
can  ever  get  within  gun  reach  of  our  shores  or  land  an  army  on  our  coast, 
when  they  are  over  3,000  miles  away,  provided  we  are  equipped  with  mines 
and  submarines?  Add  one  thing  further,  that,  in  spite  of  the  press,  the 
"  Patriotic  Societies  "  and  the  jingoes  and  war  traffickers,  our  coast  defenses 
are  superior  to  that  of  any  nation  in  the  world.  President  Taft,  in  his 
speech  in  Chicago,  November  10th,  before  the  National  Security  League, 
said :  "  American  coast  defenses  are  as  good  as  any  in  the  world."  At 
the  hearings  in  the  last  session  of  Congress  (this  year)  General  Erasmus 
M.  Weaver,  Chief  of  Coast  Artillery,  whose  duty  it  is,  he  said,  to  "be 
advised  as  to  the  character  and  sufficiency  of  our  seacoast  armament," 
stated :  "  My  information  is  that  our  system  of  fortification  is  reasonably 
adequate  for  all  defensive  purposes,  which  they  are  likely  to  be  called  upon 
to  meet";  and  further  said,  "/  have  been  a  close  student  of  the  whole 
subject  naturally  for  a  number  of  years  and  /  know  of  no  fortifications  in 
the  world,  as  far  as  my  reading,  observation  and  knowledge  goes,  that 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  71 

compare  favorably  in  efficiency  with  ours"  General  Crozier,  Chief  of  Ord- 
nance, considered  one  of  the  greatest  experts  in  the  country  on  fortifications 
and  guns,  at  the  hearings,  considering  the  alterations  then  asked  for  and 
now  being  made,  said,  "  In  my  opinion  these  guns  with  the  other  advantages 
which  our  land  defense  fortifications  have,  will  be  adequate  for  maintaining 
a  successful  combat  with  vessels  of  war  armed  with  any  gun  which  is  now 
under  construction  anywhere  in  the  world  to  my  knowledge.33 

6.  AS  TO  THE  RELATIONS  BETWEEN  THE  PRESIDENT  AND 
MYSELF. 

We  thoroughly  understand  each  other.  I  know  that  he  is  convinced 
deeply  and  sincerely  that  his  programme  is  right.  He  knows  that  I  am 
thoroughly  convinced  that  it  is  wrong.  He  knows,  too,  that  my  convictions 
on  the  subject  are  deep  and  sincere  and  that  I  have  given  the  subject 
mature  study  and  thought  and  have  reasons  for  my  position.  I  had  a 
most  cordial  and  pleasant  interview  with  him  for  an  hour  and  a  half  on 
November  the  8th.  On  this  question  we  simply  agreed  to  disagree,  both 
expressing  regrets  (and,  I  am  sure,  sincere  regrets)  that  I  could  not  sup- 
port the  programme.  My  inability  to  agree  with  him  and  my  opposition 
to  his  programme  do  not  interfere  with  the  pleasant,  cordial  relations  that 
exist  between  us.  As  he  said  in  his  Manhattan  speech,  and  assured  me, 
as  well  as  others,  this  question  is  not  a  party  question  but  one  for  the 
thought  and  conviction  of  each  individual.  The  President  knows,  too,  that 
in  all  matters  before  my  Committee,  and  especially  in  raising  sufficient 
revenue  to  finance  all  appropriations  and  in  every  effort  he  shall  make  to 
redeem  the  pledges  our  party  made  to  the  people,  he  shall  have  my  hearty 
and  earnest  co-operation. 

I  fear  that  neither  the  President  nor  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  with 
their  other  manifold  duties,  have  possibly  had  the  time  to  give  the  de- 
tailed study  and  thought  to  the  subject  which  many  of  us  have.  I  recall 
that  the  President  in  his  letter  of  July  21st  to  tile  Secretary  of  the  Navy 
(which,  by  the  way,  I  had  not  seen  until  some  time  after  my  letter  in 
September  to  the  New  York  World),  asked  for  advice  of  naval  experts, 
saying :  "  I  want  their  advice,  a  programme  by  them  formulated  in  the 
most  definite  terms."  I  cannot  help  believing  that  the  military  and  naval 
experts  have  badly  advised  and  misinformed  both  the  President  and  the 
Secretary  of  the  Navy.  Naval  officers  or  experts  are  not  competent  judges 
of  the  policy  which  this  country  should  pursue.  Their  very  training  of 
thought  and  their  ambition  are  to  see  only  one  function  of  the  govern- 
ment— that  of  the  Navy.  They  know  what  will  gratify  their  ambition. 
They  know  what  they  want.  From  the  time  a  man  enters  Annapolis,  as 
long  as  he  lives,  his  ambition  is  to  command  battleships,  the  magnificent 
floating  sea  palaces,  and  battleship  fleets.  This  consumes  his  thought.  It 
is  natural,  therefore,  and  inevitable  that  he  should  consider  the  needs  of 
the  country  in  accordance  with  his  wants  and  ambition.  The  naval  expert 
knows  how  to  build  or  superintend  the  building  of  ships  and  how  to 
fight  them  when  built.  That  is  his  thought,  his  profession,  his  ambition. 
Since  the  General  Navy  Board  was  established  in  1903,  every  President 
and  every  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  except  one,  has  recognized  these  pro- 
pensities and  limitations  of  the  naval  officers  or  naval  experts,  and  every 
President  since  1903,  since  the  Naval  Board's  first  recommendations,  and 
every  Secretary,  except  one,  until  now,  have  rejected  and  declined  to  accept 
their  recommendations,  and  no  Congress  has  ever  yet  approved  them.  Mr. 


72  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

Roosevelt  did  not  accept  them.  Only  one  of  his  Secretaries,  Mr.  Metcalfk 
did.  Neither  did  Mr.  Taft,  nor  his  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  accept  theip 
recommendations  at  any  time  during  his  four  years'  term.  Both  Mrt 
Wilson  and  Mr.  Secretary  Daniels  in  1913  declined  to  accept  their  recom* 
mendations.  They  declined  again  to  accept  their  expert  opinions  in  1914> 
five  months  after  the  European  war  had  begun.  They  both  opposed  their 
recommendations  and  so  did  Admiral  Fletcher,  the  highest  active  officer  in 
the  Navy,  Commander  of  the  Atlantic  Fleet.  But  now  the  papers  denounce 
me  as  an  "  idiot,"  as  a  "  traitor  to  my  country ;  to  my  party  and  to  the 
Administration  "  if  I  do  not  swallow  at  one  gulp  the  recommendations  of 
the  naval  experts,  because  the  President  and  his  Secretary  of  the  Navy, 
for  the  first  time,  accept  them. 

7.  THE  REGULAR,  ORDERLY,  NORMAL  PROGRAMME: 

At  the  last  session  of  Congress  (this  year),  the  President,  the  Secre- 
tary  of  the  Navy,  Admiral  Fletcher,  and  other  naval  commanders,  and  the 
Democrats  in  Congress  opposed  the  programme  of  the  Hobsons,  Gardners 
and  other  jingoes  (much  smaller  than  the  present  proposed  programme). 
The  policy  of  the  Administration  was  summed  up  before  the  Naval  Com* 
mittee  in  the  words  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy :  "  It  would  be  most 
unwise  for  us  to  act  to-day  in  any  particular  as  we  would  not  have  acted 
if  there  was  no  war.  My  theory  is  that  our  country  ought  to  be  carrying 
on  its  regular  orderly,  normal  programme  as  to  the  Navy.  With  our  poli- 
cies and  our  American  ideas  I  think  the  policy  recommended  in  my  report 
and  adopted  by  the  last  session  of  Congress  (and  recommended  at  this  ses- 
sion) is  the  steady  development  that  is  needed.  It  meets  the  needs  of  the 
country"  The  Democrats  supported  that  policy.  It  was  enacted  into  law. 
This  same  policy,  as  I  have  heretofore  shown,  is  making  our  Navy  bigger9 
stronger  and  more  efficient  than  ever  before — the  strongest  in  the  world, 
except  that  of  Great  Britain. 

It  is  my  undoubting  conviction,  that  it  is  most  unwise  and  dangerous 
at  this  time,  especially  under  the  present  circumstances,  to  abandon  that 
policy  and  adopt  the  big,  enormous,  revolutionary  programme  proposed. 

8.  WHY   MY    OPPOSITION   TO    THE    PROGRAMME   AS    AN    INDI- 

VIDUAL AND  NOT  AS  MAJORITY  LEADER. 

It  is  not  a  party  or  partisan  question.  The  President  so  declares. 
Everybody  knows  it  is  not.  It  is  one  for  each  individual  member  to  decide 
as  to  his  vote  for  himself.  The  majority  members  of  the  Ways  and  Means 
Committee,  in  the  first  instance,  make  up  the  committee  assignments  of 
the  House.  I  am  Chairman  of  the  Committee,  which  carries  with  it  the 
position  of  Majority  Leader.  I  shall  not  use  such  positions  in  influencing 
in  any  way  any  member  on  the  question.  Those  who  oppose  my  position 
and  those  who  indorse  it  will  be  treated  alike  as  to  their  assignments  to 
committees  and  as  to  all  other  matters  which  I,  as  such  Chairman  and 
leader,  and  the  members  of  the  House,  individually  or  collectively,  are 
concerned. 

In  conclusion :  To  differ  with  the  President,  to  differ  with  my  friends, 
in  and  out  of  Congress,  in  the  heat  of  the  moment  to  be  severely  criticized, 
and  sometimes  denounced  by  them,  gives  me  not  only  exceeding  regret,  but 
much  pain  and  distress.  However,  after  having  given  the  subject  much 
study  and  thought,  being  one  on  the  Naval  Affairs  Committee,  and  inter- 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  73 

ested  for  years  in  naval  subjects,  I  cannot  support  the  programme.  In 
deciding  on  this  course  I  knew  full  well  that  a  part  of  the  penalty  which 
I  would  have  to  undergo  would  be  the  criticism,  the  ridicule,  the  denuncia- 
tion, the  misrepresentation  and  the  libeling  of  myself  by  the  press  from 
one  end  of  the  country  to  the  other.  Having  the  approval  of  my  judgment 
and  conscience,  after  mature  study  and  thought,  and  impelled  by  a  sense 
of  duty,  I  take  the  step,  mattering  not  the  consequences,  political  or  other- 
wise, to  myself. 

CLAUDE  KTTCHIN. 
November  20,  1915. 


The  following  is,  in  its  entirety,  the  famous  HENRY  FORD  AD- 
VERTISEMENT, printed  in  many  of  the  leading  papers  in  the  United 
States  on  the  23rd  day  of  February,  1916: 

CONCERNING  "PREPAREDNESS" 

TO    THE    AMERICAN    PEOPLE 

The  United  States,  I  believe,  is  confronted  by  the  greatest  danger  in 
its  history.  It  is  not  an  external  danger.  As  the  President  said  in  New 
York  on  January  27 :  "  Nobody  seriously  supposes  that  the  United  States 
need  fear  an  invasion  of  its  own  territory." 

Our  danger  is  internal.  We  are  confronted  by  the  danger  of  mili- 
tarism. 

The  very  burden  that  caused  thousands  of  men  of  all  races  to  come 
to  the  United  States  in  search  of  a  haven  of  peace,  to  escape  the  toils 
of  militaristic  government,  now  is  being  preached  throughout  the  land  by 
men,  by  newspapers,  by  magazines,  moving  pictures  and,  in  fact,  every 
medium  of  intelligence. 

Conscription,  the  base  of  militarism,  is  advocated  openly. 

And  it  is  all  done  under  the  guise  of  patriotism.  The  flag  is  flaunted 
before  the  eyes  of  the  people  and  we  are  told  that  our  "national  honor5' 
is  at  stake. 

The  flaunting  was  started  by  an  organization  of  men  known  as  the 
Navy  League*.  It  has  been  taken  up  by  really  patriotic  men,  fearful  of 
the  danger  which  this  league  first  discovered.  Other  of  these  organiza- 
tions started  up  and  made  their  cry  the  danger  of  invasion  and  the  need 
of  preparing  for  it.  The  Secretary  of  the  Navy  and  the  other  officials 
were  made  the  objects  of  attack  because  they,  knowing  the  true  conditions, 
refused  to  become  hysterical. 

Congressman  Clyde  H.  Tavenner  delivered  in  the  House  two  remark- 
able speeches — "The  World  Wide  War  Trust,"  and  "The  Navy  League 
Unmasked" — giving  startling  revelations  of  an  organized  body  of  war 
traffickers  who  promote  war  and  preparations  for  war — "  preparedness." 

He  charged  that  the  Navy  League,  which  inspired  and  financed  largely 
the  present  agitation  for  "  preparation,"  was  founded  by  a  group  made 
up  largely  of  war  traffickers.  He  also  charged  that  among  the  most 
active  members  and  officers  of  the  League  today  are  men  who  not  only 
will  profit  from  "  preparedness,"  but  who  actually  hold  a  monopoly  on  the 


74  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

materials  for  war  which  the  Government  must  purchase — that  these  war- 
trameking  men  are  in  agreement  with  war  munitioners  of  Europe,  barring 
the  possibility  of  the  United  States  Government  purchasing  supplies  of 
war  at  any  price  but  that  fixed  by  the  war-traffickers  of  the  United  States. 
Mr.  Tavenner's  charges  never  have  been  refuted. 

The  very  men  who  pile  up  the  armament  of  all  nations, — and  it  is 
true  that  the  same  firm  will  often  arm  both  sides  in  a  conflict — will  find 
an  enemy  for  any  country  they  arm.  And  they  will  arm  that  enemy, 
too,  for  the  profits  on  arms  are  great,  and  the  industry  is  a  monopoly. 

This  state  of  affairs  has  been  brought  right  home  to  Americans  in 
the  past  few  years  in  Mexico,  where  we  have  seen  the  same  arms  manu- 
facturers arming  every  side.  And  the  President,  by  raising  the  embargo 
on  arms,  certainly  did  nothing  for  the  peace  of  the  world. 

We  ought  to  realize  that  it  is  the  people  who  not  only  pay  the  bills 
of  these  munitions  makers,  but  pay  the  penalty  also  in  the  death  and 
misery  the  use  of  these  arms  must  bring. 

Do  we  need  preparedness? 

The  President  himself,  in  his  speeches  made  recently  in  the  middle 
west,  could  find  no  fear  of  invasion,  and  his  inconsistencies  were  pointed 
out  even  by  the  most  ardent  editorial  advocates  of  the  "  preparedness  " 
plan.  In  December,  1914,  the  President,  in  his  message  to  Congress,  said: 
"  Let  there  be  no  misconception.  The  country  has  been  misinformed.  We 
have  not  been  negligent  of  national  defense." 

Since  that  time  the  President  said  he  had  changed  his  mind.  No 
personal  vacillation,  however,  can  change  the  facts,  and  in  spite  of  rumors 
and  suggestions  of  fear  there  have  been  no  material  facts  placed  before 
the  people  of  the  country  to  show  that  the  President  had  any  military 
reason  for  his  change  of  mind. 

The  people  should  think  for  themselves  and  demand  to  know  the 
facts. 

Whatever  the  standing  of  the  country's  safety,  this  much  is  due 
the  people;  they  should  be  allowed  to  share  the  secret  terrorizing  dis- 
patches the  President  declared  in  his  recent  tour  he  received  almost 
hourly.  The  nation  is  great  enough  and  the  people  strong  enough  to  bear 
the  worst,  to  know  what  threatens  them. 

Not  only  that,  but  it  is  the  right  of  the  people  to  demand  of  their 
President  ^he  causes  for  his  alarm.  And  if  that  alarm  is  not  genuine, 
they  have  a  right  to  know  why  it  was  uttered  by  the  head  of  the  nation. 

The  people  of  the  United  States  are  patriotic.  But  it  is  time  for  all 
to  realize  that  patriotism  does  not  consist  merely  of  dying  for  one's 
country.  I  believe  that  patriotism  consists  more  in  living  for  the  benefit 
of  the  whole  world,  of  giving  others  a  chance  to  live  for  themselves,  their 
country  and  the  world.  A  man  is  naturally  patriotic,  and  to  cry  patriot- 
ism at  him  as  is  now  being  done  throughout  the  country  is  more  of  an 
insult  than  a  compliment. 

I  believe,  too,  that  many  more  men  have  died  because  of  ambition, 
avarice  and  insincerity  than  ever  died  in  a  just  cause.  I  have  dedicated 
my  life's  work  to  the  education  of  men  on  this  subject,  with  the  hope 
that  if  war  comes  again  men  will  know  before  they  march  against  the 
machine  guns  whether  they  are  marching  for  a  just  cause  or  for  ambi- 
tion, avarice  and  insincerity. 

It  is  a  regrettable  fact  that  many  of  the  mediums  of  education  in 
the  United  States  have  been  swayed  to  the  cry  for  big  armament.  Not 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  75 

only  is  this  true,  but  it  is  equally  true  that  these  same  organs  have  bred 
racial  hatred  by  the  printing  of  incendiary  news  stories  and  articles, 
preaching  fear  of  one  of  the  European  belligerents,  giving  prominence  to 
rumors  of  unneutral  acts  of  violence,  and  paying  slight  regard  to  official 
denials  of  the  same. 

These  organs  tell  us  that  one  of  the  warring  factions  in  Europe  is 
bleeding  to  crush  militarism,  yet  in  the  same  pages  the  assumption  of 
this  beginning  of  militarism  is  declared  to  be  the  solemn  duty  of  the 
United  States. 

For  a  hundred  years,  with  Europe  fully  armed  and  strong  we  have 
been  safe.  Now,  with  Europe  locked  in  a  deadly  embrace  and  bleeding 
to  death,  we  are  called  upon  to  fear  its  invasion  of  our  shores. 

The  following  from  the  New  York  Times  of  February  9,  printed 
prominently  by  the  Times,  but  not  conspicuously  treated  by  the  great 
majority  of  city  newspapers,  gives  some  idea  of  the  facts: 

"Washington,  February  8 — Testimony  that  pleased  the  pacifist  ele- 
ment in  the  House  was  furnished  to  the  Committees  on  Military  and  Naval 
Affairs  to-day  by  General  Nelson  A.  Miles,  U.  S.  A.,  retired,  and  Rear 
Admiral  Victor  Blue,  Chief  of  the  Bureau  of  Navigation.  General  Miles 
said  he  did  not  fear  an  invasion  of  the  United  States  and  that  an  invad- 
ing enemy  could  quickly  be  driven  from  the  country.  Admiral  Blue  de- 
clared the  navy  now  was  ready  to  meet  any  enemy  it  might  be  called  upon 
to  encounter  in  the  Pacific." 

And,  remember,  aside  from  the  fact  that  we  are  able  to  do  this,  there 
remains  still  the  greater  fact  that  nothing  more  than  generalities  regard- 
ing the  possibility  of  any  attack  have  been  advanced  in  justification  of 
the  attempt  to  work  up  an  artificial  hysteria  as  a  preliminary  to  inocula- 
tion with  the  rabies  of  war. 

Those  who  have  opposed  this  militaristic  scheme  have  been  charac- 
terized as  cowards,  poltroons  and  unpatriotic.  They  are  less  cowardly 
than  the  most  ardent  militarist,  because  it  is  fear  that  is  inspiring  those 
who  are  not  looking  for  the  profits.  And  this  fear  is  a  fear  without  foun- 
dation in  reason.  Is  it  unpatriotic  to  wish  for  world  peace  instead  of 
a  universal  war  over  commercial  rights  of  a  few  men  or  to  uphold  an 
unpopular  government? 

The  sooner  the  government  of  the  world  gets  down  to  a  business  basis 
the  better  off  the  world  will  be.  I  cannot  conceive  how  any  business  man 
in  the  United  States,  after  viewing  the  result  of  military  preparation  in 
Europe,  realizing  the  geographical  situation  of  the  United  States,  and 
considering  the  result  of  the  Dardanelles  operations,  could  so  allow  his 
fears  to  be  played  upon  by  military  bargainers  as  to  approve  the  plan 
to  make  this  nation  an  armed  camp.  There  have  been  fine  words  about 
"preparedness"  and  "militarism"  being  totally  different,  but  Europe 
knows  to-day  that  the  only  difference  is  in  spelling. 

Congressman  Kitchin,  who  has  risked  his  leadership  of  the  Demo- 
crats in  the  House  to  oppose  the  "  preparedness "  measure,  calls  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  the  United  States  has  been  spending  of  late  years  a 
greater  part  of  its  revenue  for  military  equipment  than  has  any  other 
nation  in  the  world.  With  the  billions  that  would  be  spent  under  the 
proposed  extravagant  programme,  the  taxpayers  would  be  giving  nearly  70 
per  cent,  of  what  they  contribute  to  government  revenue  for  the  support 
of  an  army  and  navy. 

Would  any  man,  preparing  to  fight  a  fire  in  his  shops,  store  those 


76  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

same  shops  with  tons  of  inflammables?  Yet  that  is  what  "prepared- 
ness "  does.  And  then,  of  course,  must  come  the  inevitable. 

What  is  the  share  of  the  man  who  pays  for  all  this? 

It  is  the  burden  of  supporting  the  vast  machine  until  some  few  men 
lose  their  heads  and  touch  the  spark  to  the  ready-built  kindling-pile. 
Then  he  must  give  his  life,  or  come  home  a  cripple.  For  those  who 
remain  at  the  end  of  ijie  sad  folly  there  is  high  taxes  and  crepe  on 
the  door. 

Men  sitting  around  a  table,  not  men  dying  in  a  trench,  finally  settle 
the  differences,  anyhow. 

If  one  hundredth  of  one  per  cent,  of  all  that  has  been  spent  on  this 
kind  of  "  preparedness "  had  been  used  to  do  away  with  national  and 
international  differences  built  up  by  a  diplomacy  originating  in  the  Dark 
Ages,  war  would  have  ceased  long  ago. 

Every  man  must  admit  that  the  method  is  foolish.  And  even  the 
old  time  "  glory  "  of  war  is  dead,  the  victim  of  science.  Then  why  con- 
tinue? 

Why  not  begin  now  to  build  a  machinery  of  reason  to  do  the  work 
that  the  machinery  of  force  has  not  accomplished?  That  is  the  great 
duty  facing  those  who  govern. 

In  all  the  maze  of  argument  for  "preparedness"  the  facts  are  few. 
But  even  its  most  ardent  advocates  call  attention  to  the  coincidence  that 
this  is  a  Presidential  election  year. 

If  the  cause  lies  in  this  fact,  and  I  can  hardly  believe  it,  because  I 
am  not  very  well  versed  in  political  tricks,  it  is  time  for  the  voters  to 
remind  their  Congressmen  and  any  other  candidates  who  may  seek  their 
favor  that  the  people  will  not  spend  their  money  to  arm  for  invading 
ghosts  conjured  up  by  the  President  or  any  other  man,  be  he  a  real 
patriot  or  a  munitions-patriot. 

Let  the  President  and  others  who  are  preaching  this  doctrine  of  fear 
point  out  the  enemy,  let  them  prove  the  enemy  comes  upon  us,  and  every 
American  is  willing  to  lay  down  his  fortune  and  his  life  at  the  feet  of 
the  President,  as  Americans  have  done  before. 

But  the  same  Americans,  a  hard-headed  business  people,  will  not  lay 
down  a  nickel  if  they  become  convinced  that  they  are  paying  merely  for 
an  election  or  a  re-election  to  the  White  House  under  the  guise  of  defense 
of  home  and  fireside.  And  these  Americans  have  a  very  disconcerting  way 
of  showing  their  practical  impatience  with  fairy  tales. 

I  strongly  urge  every  American  who  is  interested  in  this  subject  that 
should  interest  all,  to  write  to  Hon.  Clyde  H.  Tavenner,  House  of  Repre- 
sentative Office  Building,  Washington,  D.  C.,  for  the  speeches  revealing 
the  motives  at  the  bottom  of  the  "  preparedness  "  agitation. 

I  strongly  urge  every  man  and  woman  who  desires  that  this  country 
should  remain  at  peace  to  write  a  protest  against  the  extravagant  pro- 
gramme now  in  Congress,  to  write  to  his  Congressman,  to  the  two  United 
States  Senators  from  his  State,  and  to  the  President  of  the  United  States. 
A  sentence  or  two  will  do.  But  make  your  meaning  plain. 

Remember,  too,  that  the  men  now  in  Congress  who  have  come  out 
strongly  against  the  project  need  encouragement  from  home.  They  face 
generally  a  solid  wall  of  ridicule  or  silence  in  the  press  of  the  cities,  and 
human  nature  finds  it  hard  to  bear  up  before  such  a  constant  hammering, 
even  though  the  object  of  the  attacks  feels  that  the  pressure  rings  not  of 
sincerity.  If  you  feel  that  the  country's  safety  is  being  jeopardized  by 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  77! 

political  manipulation,  then  make  your  protest  a  political  one,   so  that 
it  will  strike  the  deeper. 

I  am  having  this  statement  printed  in  the  advertising  columns  of 
Newspapers  and  magazines  throughout  the  United  States.  Others  will 
follow.  I  have  no  other  purpose  than  to  save  America  from  bloodshed 
and  its  young  men  from  conscription.  I  feel  that  if  this  militaristic  bur- 
den is  assumed  by  the  country,  the  United  States  within  10  years  will 
be  in  turmoil,  its  industries  paralyzed,  and  its  men,  instead  of  being  at 
Work  in  peaceful  industry,  will  be  dying  in  trenches.  And  I  feel,  too, 
that  these  men  will  not  be  dying  to  defend  their  country,  as  we  are  now 
being  told,  but  will  perish  in  the  conquest  of  other  men  who  have  a  right 
to  live  in  happiness  and  peace. 

HENRY  FORD. 
February  22,  1916. 


The  following  is,  in  its  entirety,  an  address  delivered  by  DR.  NICHO- 
LAS MURRAY  BUTLER  at  the  meeting  to  organize  a  League  for  the 
Limitation  of  Armaments,  held  at  the  Railroad  Club,  New  York,  Decem- 
ber 18,  1914,  as  published  by  the  Carnegie  Endowment  for  International 
Peace: 

THE  PREPAREDNESS  OF  AMERICA 

By  NICHOLAS  MURRAY  BUTLER 

This  movement  is  in  the  view  of  all  of  us  an  American  movement. 
It  ia  a  truly  patriotic  movement  and  one  wholly  devoid  of  any  interest 
in  or  relation  to  partisan  politics.  The  opportunity  that  to-day  confronts 
the  people  of  the  United  States  and  the  decisions  that  are  soon  to  be 
made  by  them — indeed  the  decisions  that  are  now  being  made  in  the  hearts 
and  minds  of  the  people — are  of  graver  significance  and  more  far-reaching 
importance  than  any  that  have  preceded  them  in  a  full  half  century. 

We  must  not  permit  ourselves  to  be  placed  in  the  position  of  opposing 
the  fullest  possible  inquiry  by  the  agents  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States  into  their  public  affairs  and  into  every  detail  of  their  public  busi- 
ness. For  one,  I  should  welcome  a  properly  conducted  inquiry  into  the 
military  and  naval  expenditures  made  by  the  government  of  the  United 
States  in  recent  years,  because  I  believe  that  the  first  result  of  such  in- 
quiry would  be  to  show  that  under  better  administrative  conditions  and 
under  more  businesslike  management,  we  should  have  gotten  much  more 
for  the  money  spent — or,  to  put  it  in  another  way,  we  should  have  gotten 
what  we  need  for  less  money.  Such  an  inquiry  is  something  quite  apart 
from  an  agitation  for  greatly  increased  military  and  naval  expenditures 
and  from  the  vigorous  exploitation  of  our  nation's  so-called  lack  of  pre- 
paredness for  war. 

Moreover,  we  all  recognize  that  it  is  the  constitutional  duty  of  the 
government  of  the  United  States  to  be  in  possession  of  such  force  as  will 
enable  it  to  suppress  domestic  insurrection,  to  enforce  the  laws  and  to 
protect  the  States  from  invasion.  That  duty  is  placed  upon  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  by  the  constitution.  The  experience  of  one 
hundred  years  proves  with  reasonable  completeness  that  we  know  how  to- 


78  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

do  all  these  things  and  that  we  have  been  able  to  do  them  without  env 
barking  upon  a  policy  of  competitive  armament  building. 

The  situation  that  now  confronts  us  is  one  in  which  we  are  invitee") 
not  to  maintain  the  traditional  American  policy  but  to  depart  from  it; 
And  we  are  asked  to  depart  from  it  in  the  face  of  the  most  impressive 
and  emphatic  lesson  that  history  records  that  the  traditional  American 
policy  has  been  right. 

The  great  war  in  Europe  has  produced  two  kinds  of  reaction  here  in 
the  United  States.  It  has  produced  in  one  set  of  minds  the  reaction  of 
imitation;  it  has  produced  in  another  set  of  minds  the  reaction  of  avoid- 
ance. We  stand  with  those  who  experience  the  reaction  of  avoidance. 

When  we  are  told  in  terms  of  most  vivid  eloquence  that  we  must  be 
prepared  for  war,  I  ask  "  For  what  war  and  for  war  with  whom  ?  "  Are 
we  to  be  prepared  for  war  with  the  Dominion  of  Canada,  our  neighbor 
to  the  north?  If  so,  how  shall  we  set  about  better  protecting  the  long, 
invisible  line  that  separates  the  Dominion  from  the  territory  of  the  United 
States,  extending  over  more  than  three  thousand  five  hundred  miles,  than 
we  have  been  doing  for  one  hundred  years?  We  have  protected  it  so 
thoroughly  that  a  century  of  peace  has  marked  the  relations  of  the  two 
peoples  on  either  side  of  this  undefended  line.  How  better  can  we  pro- 
tect our  valuable  commerce  on  the  Great  Lakes  than  by  adhering  with 
rigid  insistence  to  the  terms  of  the  Rush-Bagot  agreement,  now  nearly 
one  hundred  years  old,  by  which  we  limited  ourselves  to  an  armed  force 
on  the  lakes  of  two  small  and  long  since  antiquated  gunboats? 

But  if  we  are  not  to  be  prepared  for  war  with  Canada,  are  we  to  be 
prepared  for  war  with  Europe?  If  so,  with  what  nation  in  Europe,  and 
why  are  we  to  prepare  just  now?  There  would  have  been  some  theoretical 
force  five  years  ago  in  the  argument  that  we  should  be  prepared  to  defend 
ourselves  against  invasion  from  across  the  sea;  but  to-day,  when  our 
friends  in  every  land  are  bleeding  to  death  before  our  eyes,  when  the 
nations  of  Europe  are  exhausting  their  manhood,  impoverishing  their  re- 
sources, destroying  their  commerce  and  their  trade,  bankrupting  their 
treasuries  and  using  up  the  raw  materials  of  armaments  in  the  construc- 
tion of  the  completed  instrumentalities  of  death — why,  when  the  nations 
of  Europe  are  about  to  be  reduced  to  helplessness  through  exhaustion  and 
starvation  should  we  arm  ourselves  against  any  one  of  them?  Who  is 
this  invisible,  this  unknown,  this  unheralded  enemy  against  whose  attack 
we  are  to  prepare  ourselves  at  such  great  expense  ?  As  practical  men  and 
women  dealing  with  facts  and  facing  the  realities  of  politics  and  of  life 
we  ask  our  militaristic  friends  for  a  bill  of  particulars.  Are  we  to  arm 
to  the  teeth  and  draw  our  resources  away  from  that  needed  social  and  in- 
dustrial improvement  which  thrusts  problems  upon  us  on  every  hand  in 
order  to  expend  them  upon  useless  armaments  against  nobody? 

And  whose  suspicions  are  we  to  arouse?  When  the  whole  world  is 
looking  to  us  and  when  the  wise  men  of  every  nation  are  saying  to  Amer- 
ica, "You  at  least  are  free  from  the  curse  of  militarism,  you  at  least  are 
in  a  position  to  exercise  moral  suasion  and  moral  leadership,"  shall  we 
at  such  a  moment  climb  down  from  that  high  position  of  consequence  in 
order  to  prepare  ourselves  to  take  part  in  the  terrible  turmoil  of  physical 
conflict  and  public  murder?  I  say,  no. 

We  are  concerned  then  not  merely  with  a  declaration  of  high  princi- 
ple and  of  motive  and  purpose,  but  we  are  concerned  with  the  serious 
business  of  the  education  of  public  opinion.  We  must  direct  ourselves 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  W 

to  the  persuasive,  constant  and  persistent  instruction  of  the  public  mind, 
to  the  end  that  it  may  see  that  the  realities  of  this  situation  are  with  the 
lovers  of  peace  and  of  international  amity  and  that  the  imaginary  and 
theoretical  aspects  of  it  are  with  those  who  desire  us  to  prepare  for  an 
unknown  war. 

In  a  famous  book,  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  traced  the  history  of  civiliza- 
tion from  a  period  of  militaristic  to  a  later  period  of  industrial  organiza- 
tion and  life.  He  indicated  just  what  had  happened  in  the  world  as  man- 
kind made  this  progress  and  he  pointed  out  in  what  ways  men  had  ad- 
vanced and  how  they  had  acquired  wealth,  intelligence,  comfort  and  mani- 
fold privileges  by  shedding  the  old  clothes  of  militarism  and  putting  on 
the  garments  which  belong  to  a  life  of  free  and  competitive  industry.  We 
do  not  wish  to  go  backward;  we  do  not  wish  to  turn  back  the  hands  on 
the  clock  of  progress  and  return  this  nation  of  ours  to  the  earlier  and 
cruder  militaristic  stage  of  civilization.  We  wish  rather  to  pass  on  into 
a  new  and  third  stage  which  opens  before  us  as  we  speak. 

As  Mr.  Spencer  traced  the  progress  of  civilization  from  militarism 
to  industry,  so  to-day  we  can  almost  see  the  progress  of  civilization  from 
industrialism  to  the  stage  of  a  new  and  higher  morality,  to  a  new  and 
higher  conception  of  international  conduct  and  to  an  enforcement  by 
reason  and  morality  of  those  high  standards  of  judgment  and  action  that 
mark  the  civilized  man  in  every  country  in  the  world. 

For  a  contest  to  gain  the  position  of  leadership  in  that  movement, 
this  nation  is  prepared.  For  such  a  struggle  America  is  armed.  By  con- 
fining our  army  and  navy — sufficient,  competent  and  well  furnished — to 
the  proper  limits  of  their  activity  in  a  democracy,  we  shall  then  keep 
ourselves  free  to  build  that  great  structure  of  wisdom,  justice,  amity 
and  peace  on  which  the  continuance  and  advancement  of  civilization  ab- 
solutely depend. 

Therefore,  I  do  not  conceive  of  this  gathering  in  terms  of  protest;  I 
conceive  of  it  rather  in  terms  of  an  offering  of  constructive  leadership 
in  a  great  forward  movement.  We  will  not  permit  ourselves  to  be 
weighted  down  with  the  discarded  armor  of  the  Middle  Ages,  the  only 
proper  place  for  which  is  in  the  museums  of  battered  Europe.  We  wish 
to  be  set  free.  We  wish  our  children  to  be  free.  We  wish  our  minds,  our 
labor  and  our  activity  to  be  free.  We  wish  our  nation  to  be  free  to  con- 
tinue to  build  a  great  and  beautiful  temple  of  freedom  to  which  the  wise 
and  good  of  every  nation  will  continue  to  repair,  and  toward  which  the 
nations  of  stricken  Europe  will  turn  for  the  friendly  hand  of  helpfulness 
when  the  sun  sets  on  those  Continental  fields  of  carnage  yonder. 


The  following  is,  in  its  entirety: 

A  MEMORIAL  TO  THE  MEMBERS  OF  THE  SENATE  AND  HOUSE 
OF  REPRESENTATIVES  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF 
AMERICA  FROM  THE  RELIGIOUS  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS  OF 
PENNSYLVANIA,  NEW  JERSEY,  DELAWARE  AND  PARTS'  OF 
MARYLAND:— 
In  view  of  the  present  agitation  and  propaganda  for  a  large  increase 

in  the  military  and  naval  strength  of  our  country,  the  Society  of  Friends, 

through  its  Representative  Body,  respectfully  presents  to  you  the  following 

memorial : 


80  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

From  its  inception  this  Society  has  believed  that  all  war  is  unright- 
eous, and  that  military  service  is  contrary  to  the  teaching  and  the  life 
of  Christ;  that  it  is  the  duty  of  nations  as  it  is  of  individuals  to  practice 
Christianity  by  basing  their  actions  on  justice,  good  will  and  love,  which 
alone  can  heal  the  social  and  economic  diseases  of  mankind.  In  main- 
taining this  faith  many  Friends  in  the  past  have  suffered  imprisonment, 
loss  of  property,  sickness  and  death,  and,  we  believe,  many  to-day  would 
not  shrink  from  similar  sacrifice  if  it  were  required.  It  is  not,  therefore, 
a  lack  of  courage,  or  an  easy  security  that  prompts  our  appeal,  but  rather 
a  patriotism  that  includes  the  welfare  of  all  the  nations  of  mankind,  and 
an  abiding  faith  in  the  ultimate  victory  of  human  brotherhood.  We  are 
willing  to  sacrifice  more  than  war  would  call  for  in  the  interests  of  peace. 

Basing  our  plea  on  this  broad  Christian  ground,  we  would  briefly 
state  some  other  considerations  against  committing  our  country  to  a  policy 
of  military  expansion. 

1.  Advocates  of  "preparedness"  urge  national  defense  as  the  only 
justification    for    their    programme.      Aggressive    warfare    by    the    United 
States  is  inconceivable,  unless  the  temper  of  the  people  is  changed  by  the 
existence  of  greater  armaments. 

It  is  our  conviction  that: — 

(a)  We  are  already  defended  geographically  by  two  oceans,  by 
an  unfortified  northern  boundary  of  three  thousand  miles   that  has 
proved  a  sure  guarantee  of  peace  for  a  century,  and  by  a  southern 
frontier  where  self-restraint  and  magnanimous   patience  have  main- 
tained peace  in  the  face  of  extreme  provocation. 

(b)  The  citizens  of  the  United  States  are  a  composite  people  of 
many  racial  strains.    We  are  connected  so  intimately  by  ties  of  blood 
and  sympathy  with  all  the  nations  of  the  old  world  that  public  opinion 
would  make  a  war  with  any  of  the  great  powers  practically  impossi- 
ble.    These  international  bonds  are  a  pledge  of  continued  friendship 
and  good  will. 

(c)  The  terrible  war  now  in  progress  is  exhausting  the  strength 
of   the   combatants.     The  inconceivable  wreckage   and  waste   of   life, 
treasure,  industry,  commerce  and  intellectual  and  moral  force  are  re- 
ducing all  the  great  European  powers  to  a  condition  from  which  they 
cannot  soon  recover.     This  is  a  fact  and  not  a  supposition.     Japan, 
the  only  other  power  mentioned  as  a  possible  antagonist,  has  shown 
a  consistent  desire  to  maintain  friendly  relations  with  our  country, 
and  is  already  heavily  burdened  by  taxes  and  an  overwhelming  war 
debt. 

2.  A  policy  of  military  expansion  on  a  grand  scale  will  commit  the 
United  States  to  militarism. 

True  democracy  and  militarism  are  contradictory.  The  one  must 
destroy  the  other. 

It  is  almost  impossible  to  arrest  a  militaristic  policy  when  once 
it  is  launched.  Fear  is  added  to  fear,  false  ideals  flourish,  interna- 
tional friendship  changes  to  suspicion,  special  interests  warp  the 
public  mind. 

The  true  greatness  of  the  United  States  in  international  affairs 
has  not  rested  upon  naval  and  military  force,  but  upon  candor,  and 
good  will,  a  high  sense  of  national  honor  and  fundamental  justice. 

3.  The  great  war  is  abundant  proof  that  great  armaments  are  not 
a  protection  against  attack.    In  the  hands  of  a  militaristic  administration 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  81 

they  may  be  a  fertile  cause  of  war.  They  are  a  constant  menace  on  the 
one  hand  and  an  invitation  to  aggression  on  the  other.  They  fill  the 
popular  imagination,  so  that  if  differences  arise  between  nations  the  peo- 
ple cry  out  for  war,  and  thus  force  becomes  the  basis  of  settlement  rather 
than  justice  and  equity. 

The  genius  of  the  United  States  has  been  for  arbitration  and  the  judi- 
cial settlement  of  international  disputes. 

These  are  a  few  of  many  reasons  against  committing  the  United 
States  to  a  military  policy  at  this  time  of  popular  unrest. 

We  believe  it  is  a  grave  moment  in  the  history  of  our  country,  and 
we  appeal  to  you  who  bear  the  heavy  burden  of  responsibility,  to  meet  the 
crisis  in  the  spirit  of  Christian  patriotism.  Your  action  in  this  Congress 
may  bind  the  shackles  of  the  old  world  militarism  upon  our  continent,  or 
free  it  for  true  world  leadership  in  the  cause  of  enduring  liberty  based 
on  justice,  brotherhood  and  peace. 

The  destinies  of  the  other  American  Republics  are  intimately  connected 
with  those  of  the  United  States.  They  are  anxiously  awaiting  your  action. 
A  military  policy  adopted  by  the  United  States  will  create  suspicion  among 
them,  and  they  will  begin  to  arm  against  us.  Thus  fear  will  beget  fear, 
and  suspicion,  suspicion. 

Instead,  therefore,  of  acting  at  once  and  hastily  on  the  question  of 
"preparedness"  against  dangers  probably  imaginary,  and  certainly  remote 
in  time,  we  strongly  urge  upon  this  Administration,  and  upon  the  Congress 
now  assembled,  the  calling  at  once  by  the  United  States  of  a  great  confer- 
ence of  all  the  American  Republics  for  solemn  council  that  may  guarantee 
perpetual  peace  and  community  of  interest  in  this  hemisphere. 

William  Penn,  the  Founder  of  Pennsylvania,  conceived  a  "  Plan  for 
the  Peace  of  Europe."  If  it  had  been  fairly  tried,  great  armies  and  navies 
would  have  disappeared  long  ago  and  the  present  war  would  have  been 
impossible.  We  citizens  of  the  Commonwealth  where  Penn  tried  his 
"Holy  Experiment,"  and  believers  in  his  religious  faith,  urge  upon  you  at 
this  time  as  an  act  of  the  truest  and  noblest  patriotism,  consideration 
of  a  Plan  for  the  Peace  of  America.  A  League  of  American  Republics 
united  for  co-operation,  mutual  progress  and  reciprocity  in  trade  and 
commerce,  and  in  the  things  of  the  mind  and  the  spirit  would  for- 
ever safeguard  the  peace  of  this  Western  Hemisphere,  and  challenge  Eu- 
rope to  imitate  the  American  example.  Men  of  faith  and  vision  agree  that 
this  will  be  a  reality  in  the  future.  Will  there  ever  be  a  better  opportunity 
than  to-day? 

Signed  on  behalf  and  by  direction  of  the  Representative  Meeting. 

WILLIAM  B.  HAEVEY,  Clerk. 

Twelfth  Month  10,  1915. 

304  Arch  Street,  Philadelphia. 


The  following  paragraphs  are: 

Extracts  from  THE   CAUSE  OF  THE  WAR,   by  CHARLES  EDWARD 

JEFFERSON,  Pastor  of  the  Broadway  Tabernacle,  New  York  City. 

Published  by  Thomas  Y.  Crowell  Company,  December,  1914. 

.     .     .    .    "  The  war  is  the  result  of  a  false  philosophy  of  national 

life,  a  philosophy  which  maintains   that  the   foundation  of   all   power   is 

physical  force,  and  that  greatness  is  to  be  computed  in  terms  of  brute 


S2  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

strength.  It  is  a  barbaric  philosophy  which  has  been  driven  from  one  field 
to  another  because  of  the  havoc  it  wrought,  and  we  now  see  its  operations 
in  a  realm  in  which  it  is  working  its  ruin  on  a  scale  vast  and  appalling. 
Out  of  this  philosophy  there  develops  a  policy — the  policy  of  armed  peace, 
the  policy  which  bases  peace  on  the  fear  which  is  inspired  by  deadly  weapons. 
The  policy  was  long  tried  in  the  realm  of  individual  life.  Men  went  daily 
armed  to  the  teeth,  to  protect  themselves  against  one  another.  The  practice 
led  to  interminable  brawls,  and  feuds,  and  duels,  until  at  last  it  was 
given  up.  Only  rowdies  now  carry  knives  and  guns.  The  policy  was  then 
adopted  by  cities.  Cities  preserved  the  peace  by  arming  themselves.  Every 
city  had  its  wall,  its  moat,  its  drawbridges.  Its  armed  forces  were  always 
held  in  leash  ready  for  either  defense  or  attack.  The  history  of  those  days 
is  a  disgusting  record  of  deadly  rivalries,  rapine,  and  slaughter.  The 
policy  was  at  last  banished  from  the  realm  of  interurban  life.  Cities  situ- 
ated within  narrow  limits  bound  themselves  together  into  leagues,  and 
numerous  small  states  took  their  place  on  the  European  map.  These  prov- 
inces adopted,  however,  the  policy  of  armed  peace,  and  the  result  was  con- 
stant jealousies  and  bickerings  and  frequent  bloody  collisions.  The  little 
states  grew  sick  at  last  of  the  exhausting  strife,  and  rolled  themselves  into 
great  states,  which  became  known  as  world  powers.  But  the  old  policy  of 
armed  peace,  which  the  common  sense  of  men  had  banished  from  the  realm 
of  individual,  and  interurban,  and  interprovincial  life,  was  retained  in  the 
realm  of  international  life.  Men  knew  that  little  states  could  not  wisely 
adopt  it,  but  they  supposed  that  large  states  could.  They  banished  it  from 
the  administration  of  little  powers,  and  retained  it  in  the  scheme  of  the 
great  powers.  The  result  is  a  great  war.  The  war  has  come  out  of  a 
false  policy,  and  the  false  policy  came  out  of  a  false  philosophy.  We  are 
to  seek,  then,  the  cause  of  the  present  horror  in  the  realm  of  ideas.  It  is 
sometimes  asserted  that  it  does  not  make  any  difference  what  you  believe. 
The  fact  is  that  everything  depends  on  what  you  believe.  When  men  be- 
lieve the  truth,  it  is  well  with  the  world.  When  they  believe  error,  dark- 
ness falls  on  the  lands. 

Let  us  look  a  moment  at  this  philosophy.  The  modern  name  of  it  is 
militarism.  Militarism  has  a  creed  with  three  articles.  Article  one  asserts 
that  war  is  a  good  thing.  It  has  brought  many  blessings  in  the  past.  It 
will  bring  many  more  in  the  future.  It  is  indispensable  for  national  well- 
being.  Without  war,  the  virile  virtues  gradually  decay,  and  the  moral 
fiber  of  nations  rots.  This  is  the  plain  teaching  of  all  modern  militarists 
from  von  Moltke  to  von  Bernhardi.  Article  second  is  a  necessary  deduc- 
tion from  the  first.  Since  war  is  good  and  indispensable,  and  sure  to  come, 
because  it  lies  in  the  structure  of  the  great  world  plan,  therefore  the  su- 
preme duty  of  a  nation  is  to  be  ready  for  it.  Equip  yourselves  with  ail  the 
necessary  apparatus.  You  must  lay  in  an  enormous  stock  of  guns  and 
ammunition.  You  must  have  the  latest  weapons.  Old  weapons  are  value- 
less. You  must  buy  the  costliest  of  them,  for  only  these  are  effective  when 
the  day  of  battle  comes.  No  matter  what  the  cost  is,  the  nation  must 
submit  to  it,  even  if  it  is  compelled  to  mortgage  the  resources  of  genera- 
tions yet  unborn.  But  weapons  are  of  no  value  unless  men  know  how  to 
use  them.  These  modern  instruments  of  blood  are  complicated,  and  they 
require  a  deal  of  practice.  Therefore  great  masses  of  men  must  spend 
their  life  in  drilling.  They  must  practice  constantly  war  games  on  the 
sea,  and  on  the  land,  and  in  the  air,  for  "  Preparedness  "  is  the  one  golden 
motto  of  a  nation.  The  third  article  of  the  creed  is  that  army  and  naval 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  83 

officials  constitute  a  superior  caste.  They  are  the  anointed  custodians  of 
the  nation's  honor,  the  divine  guardians  of  the  nation's  treasures,  the 
saviors  of  the  nation's  life.  Therefore  they  are  th\5  safest  counselors  of 
diplomats,  and  the  wisest  advisers  of  presidents  and  kings.  The  whole  doc- 
trine is  tersely  put  by  a  rear-admiral  in  our  navy  in  an  article  published 
by  him  shortly  before"  the  opening  of  this  war.  The  gist  of  his  argument 
is  as  follows:  The  influence  of  an  ambassador  of  any  nation  depends  on 
the  number  and  size  of  the  guns  behind  him.  It  is  by  means  of  guns  that 
a  nation  exerts  pressure  on  its  neighbors.  This  brings  the  naval  officer 
into  the  realm  of  international  diplomacy.  He  muet  stand  by  the  side  of 
the  civil  diplomat  and  assist  him  in  his  work.  Indeed,  he  is  the  better  man 
of  the  two,  because  of  his  superior  training  and  his  longer  term  of  office, 
and,  therefore,  the  officers  of  the  United  States  Navy  are  the  only  body  of 
men  on  whom  our  republic  can  continuously  and  safely  rely.  This  is  a 
very  frank  and  modest  statement  of  a  militarist  who  is  sure  of  the  divine 
mission  of  the  navy.  Not  all  officers  in  our  army  and  navy  are  militarists. 
Many  of  them,  however,  are,  and  the  creed  which  they  hold  is  the  creed 
held  by  militarists  the  world  over:  War  is  good,  be  ready,  and  leave  the 
direction  of  international  business  to  us! 

Militarism,  wherever  you  find  it,  is  cocky,  arrogant  and  brutal.  It  is 
everywhere  and  always  the  deadly  and  implacable  enemy  of  mankind. 

One  of  its  fundamental  principles  is,  "  Strike  first,  and  strike  hard." 
That  is  the  law  of  all  militarists,  and  that,  you  observe,  is  the  law  of  the 
jungle,  it  is  the  creed  of  the  tiger.  The  tiger  always  leaps  with  the  swift- 
ness of  lightning.  Its  victim  must  be  crushed  in  the  first  attack.  Mili- 
tarism goes  back  to  the  jungle  for  its  models.  If  you  are  settling  disputes 
by  reason,  you  can  take  time  to  consider  and  sift  and  weigh;  if  you  are 
settling  disputes  by  guns,  you  must  be  quick  as  a  tiger.  There  is  no  time 
for  reason.  One  of  the  most  appalling  features  of  the  opening  of  the  war 
was  the  lack  of  time  to  consider.  Of  the  one  hundred  and  fifty-nine  tele- 
grams and  notes  in  the  English  White  Papers,  the  one  of  greatest  pathos 
is  that  of  Sir  Edward  Gray  to  Sir  Edward  Goschen  on  August  1,  "  I  still 
believe  that  it  might  be  possible  to  secure  peace  if  only  a  little  respite  in 
time  can  be  gained."  Time  was  the  one  thing  essential,  and,  alas,  there 
was  no  time  to  be  gotten.  The  cavalrymen  were  all  on  their  horses,  and 
in  an  instant  they  were  over  the  border.  You  have  seen  horses  dash  out 
of  the  engine-house  when  the  fire  alarm  struck.  With  just  such  swiftness 
dashed  the  armies  of  Europe  into  the  arena  of  war.  We  are  ready!  That 
was  the  shout  that  went  from  mouth  to  mouth  around  the  whole  circle  of 
nations.  For  forty  years  they  had  been  preparing,  standing  each  one  in 
shining  armor,  and  when  the  crisis  came,  there  was  no  possibility  of  delay. 
For  a  generation  the  genius  and  the  wealth  of  the  nations  had  been  ex- 
pended on  the  apparatus  of  war.  They  had  all  prepared  for  war,  and  it 
came.  It  came  easily.  It  came  in  spite  of  the  efforts  of  the  diplomats  to 
hold  it  off.  The  machinery  of  peace  had  secured  but  scant  attention,  and 
it  broke  down  under  the  strain  of  the  fateful  hour.  The  messengers  of 
peace  were  just  a  little  late  all  the  way  round  the  circle  because  the  horses 
of  war  were  on  a  gallop.  One  cannot  read  the  White  Papers  of  the 
various  countries  without  being  impressed  by  the  fact  that  none  of  the 
ambassadors  wanted  this  war.  They  were  dragged  into  it  because  all  the 
nations  were  lashed  tight  to  their  guns.  When  once  the  great  masses  of 
steel  began  to  move,  their  momentum  was  irresistible.  From  that  instant 


84  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

Europe  began  to  be  ground  to  powder  by  the  armaments  she  had  created 
for  preserving  peace. 

Militarism  is  the  absolute  negation  of  Christianity.  The  one  exhibits 
a  mailed  fist,  the  other  shows  you  a  hand  that  is  pierced.  The  one  carries 
a  big  stick,  the  other  carries  the  cross  on  which  the  Prince  of  Glory  died. 
The  one  declares  that  might  makes  right,  the  other  affirms  that  right  makes 
might.  The  one  says  that  the  foundation  of  all  things  is  force,  the  other 
says  that  the  foundation  of  all  things  is  love.  Militarism  is  materialism 
in  its  deadliest  manifestation.  It  is  atheism  in  its  most  brutal  and  blatant 
incarnation.  It  is  the  enemy  of  God  and  man.  It  must  be  overthrown. 
Every  nation  which  becomes  its  devotee  is  doomed.  Militaristic  nations  are 
broken  te  pieces  like  potter's  vessels.  So  did  the  Almighty  break  Ninevah 
and  Babylon,  Persia,  and  Greece,  and  Rome,  and  so,  unless  they  repent,  will 
He  break  in  fragments  the  so-called  great  powers  of  Europe.  He  will,  if 
necessary,  convert  the  capitals  of  our  modern  world  into  dust  heaps  like 
those  of  Thebes  and  Memphis,  and  begin  the  world  anew.  He  will  overturn 
and  overturn,  until  he  whose  right  it  is,  shall  reign.  He  that  hath  an  ear, 
let  him  hear  what  the  Spirit  is  saying  to  the  churches — and  to  the 
nations ! 


The  following  is  an  EDITORIAL  in  its  entirety  by  HAMILTON  HOLT 
published  in  TEE  INDEPENDENT  of  October  18,  1915: 

SHOULDER  ARMS! 

Henry  A.  Wise  Wood  is  alarmed.  As  President  of  the  American  So- 
ciety of  Aeronautical  Engineers  he  attended  the  other  day  one  of  the 
"  war  luncheons "  being  held  every  week  at  the  Technology  Club  of  this 
city,  and  there  made  a  few  remarks.  According  to  the  papers  Mr.  Wood 
is  said  to  have  said: 

"  Records  in  Washington  show  that  a  certain  European  nation  could 
land  in  the  United  States  within  forty-eight  days  750,000  men,  with  250,- 
000  horses  and  munitions  sufficient  for  a  three  months'  campaign,  with 
half  the  transports  available  before  the  present  war.  .  .  .  Furthermore 
similar  records  show  that  a  nation  on  the  Pacific  could  land  350,000 
troops  on  the  Pacific  Coast  within  sixty-one  days  with  half  its  trans- 
ports." 

Though  it  may  show  a  culpable  disregard  for  our  national  safety, 
we  must  defer  for  the  present  consideration  of  the  "certain  European 
nation."  Whichever  it  may  be,  it  has  sufficient  troubles  of  its  own  at 
this  moment  and  we  can  assume  it  will  not  attack  us  during  the  next 
few  weeks,  certainly  not  before  Congress  meets  and  increases  taxes  three 
or  four  fold  so  as  to  relieve  our  "  criminal  unpreparedness." 

But  how  about  that  "  nation  on  the  Pacific "  ?  Can  it  possibly  be 
Japan?  If  so,  we  should  worry. 

Just  think  how  easy  it  would  be  for  the  little  yellow  men  to  seize 
the  Pacific  Coast,  proceed  up  over  the  mountain  passes  of  the  Sierras 
arid  Rockies  and  thence  overrun  the  corn  belt  of  the  Middle  West.  Indeed, 
once  in  the  Mississippi  Valley  there  would  be  no  stopping  them  until  the 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  85 

pie  belt  of  New  England  and  the  fried  chicken  belt  of  "  our  beloved  South- 
laud  "  were  completely  occupied. 

In  the  first  place  the  astute  Japanese  statesmen,  having  reversed  their 
historic  policy  of  maintaining  friendly  relations  with  the  United  States, 
would  have  to  consider  how  60,000,000  people  could  invade  territory  occu- 
pied by  100,000,000  people,  5,000  miles  away.  Having  resolved  that  this 
was  easy  enough,  they  would  then  proceed  to  mobilize  their  present  army 
of  250,000  and  increase  it  sufficiently  so  that  350,000  troops  could  be 
spared  to  cross  the  seas.  Of  course  they  would  have  to  increase  the  army 
much  more  than  350,000  in  order  to  have  at  home  enough  to  protect  the 
Empire  in  case  the  United  States  sailed  around  the  back  way  and  at- 
tacked them  in  the  rear. 

But  before  the  Japanese  armada  could  attack  America,  the  United 
States  Navy  would  have  to  be  sunk,  for  as  Napoleon  proved  long  ago,  no 
overseas  invasion  can  take  place  as  long  as  the  enemies'  fleet  is  afloat. 
But  as  no  fleet  can  operate  4,000  miles  from  its  base  at  more  than  fifty 
per  cent,  of  its  strength,  if  Admiral  Vreeland  of  our  navy  is  to  be  be- 
lieved, Japan,  whose  navy  is  now  much  inferior  to  ours,  could  hardly 
concentrate  a  fleet  a  third  the  strength  of  the  American  on  the  Pacific 
Coast. 

But  we  know  the  Japanese  are  wonderful  fighters,  so  we  will  assume 
that  they  have  sunk  our  entire  fleet.  Then  all  they  would  have  to  do 
would  be  to  clear  the  seas  of  our  submarines  and  mines.  The  fact  that 
England,  with  the  greatest  navy  in  the  world,  has  not  yet  dared  attempt 
to  land  an  expedition  on  the  German  or  Belgian  coast,  or  Germany  upon 
the  English  coast,  is  no  proof  that  the  abler  yellow-skinned  men  would 
not  succeed. 

It  will  now  be  perfectly  safe  for  the  armada  to  set  sail  and  be  at  our 
shores  in  the  sixty-one  days  specified.  The  fact  that  some  of  these  days 
have  been  consumed  in  waiting  for  the  American  fleet  to  be  destroyed 
need  give  no  concern.  We  know  there  are  some  four  fast  liners  that  go 
from  Yokohoma  to  San  Francisco  in  three  weeks.  No  doubt  the  1,000 
slower,  smaller  transports  that  would  be  needed  could  be  readily  put  in 
commission  and  convoyed  over  without  mishap  within  the  "  sixty-one 
days."  All  the  armada  would  then  have  to  do  would  be  to  disembark 
its  troops,  demolish  the  fortified  coast  defenses  and  take  the  several  lines 
of  trenches  that  had  been  thrown  up  from  Lower  California  to  Puget 
Sound. 

We  all  know  how  easily  the  coast  defenses  can  be  taken — at  the 
Dardanelles,  for  instance — and  how  easily  trenches  have  been  captured 
in  the  present  war,  as  the  men  on  the  firing  lines  universally  attest.  No 
doubt  the  Japanese  would  seize  our  entrenchments  with  but  few  casual- 
ties. And  to  make  certainty  doubly  certain,  they  would  unquestionably 
bring  with  them  sufficient  42  centimeter  guns  and  ammunition,  so  that 
they  would  not  be  caught  napping  as  the  Russians  have  been.  Despite 
the  poverty  of  Japan  and  the  enormous  taxes  owing  to  the  Russo-Japan- 
ese War,  she  would  fiiad  no  difficulty  in  sending  over  enough  ammunition 
so  as  to  use  up  a  million  dollars'  worth  a  day,  as  is  frequently  done  before 
a  charge  by  the  Germans. 

Having,  then,  with  their  considerably  smaljer  navy,  sunk  our  fleet, 
eluded  our  submarines  and  mines,  and  with  their  army  taken  our  trenches 
and  driven  our  regular  army  and  militia  back  over  the  Rockies,  the  Jap- 
anese would  not  find  it  very  difficult  to  dispose  of  our  "  contemptible  little 


86  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

army"  of  1,000,000  volunteers,  that  would  have  been  drilling  night  and 
day  in  the  meantime. 

And  thus,  in  the  shake  of  a  lamb's  tail,  the  subjugation  of  the  United 
States  would  be  complete.  Mr.  Henry  A.  Wise  Wood  deserves  the  thanks 
of  the  republic  for  his  warning.  To  arms,  Americans,  to  arms! 


THE  PROS  AND  CONS  OF  PREPAREDNESS 

The  Literary  Digest  of  February  26,  1916,  contained  the  following 
topics  and  suggestions  for  the  discussion  of  national  defense,  both  affirma- 
tive and  negative,  and  I  quote  same  here  in  its  entirety,  inclusive  of  intro- 
ductory captions: 

OUTLINE  FOR  DEBATE 

Preparedness  is  the  subject  of  political  discussion  and  the  topic  of 
conversation  everywhere,  and  it  will  continue  to  fill  the  public  mind  for 
many  months  to  come.  One  of  the  most  effective  ways  of  getting  a  clear 
view  of  all  the  ramifications  of  a  subject  is  to  "  brief  "  it.  We  believe  the 
following  debate,  prepared  by  an  expert,  will  interest  our  great  body  of 
subscribers,  and  will  prove  valuable  to  the  vast  army  of  pupils  who  are 
studying  The  Literary  Digest  as  a  text  in  their  classrooms.  The  general 
plan  of  this  outline  is  in  harmony  with  the  policy  of  The  Digest  to  give 
both  sides  of  great  questions  without  expressing  any  editorial  opinion  of 
its  own. 

BRIEF  FOR  DISCUSSION  ON  PREPAREDNESS 

AFFIRMATIVE 

I.  PBEPABEDNESS  is  NECESSARY. 
(A)   War  is  probable. 

(1)  We  are  now  having  serious  trouble  with  England  over 

trade  and  ocean  rights. 

(a)   American-owned  vessels  have  been  seized  by  Great 
Britain. 

(2)  We  are  on  the  verge  of  a  diplomatic  break  with  Germany 

and  Austria. 

(a)  These  countries  will  not  abandon  their  submarine 

warfare. 

(b)  We  have  aroused  their  enmity  by  exporting  war 

munitions  to  the  Allies. 

( 3 )  We  have  set  ourselves  up  as  the  guardians  of  international 

law. 
(a)   Ancona,  Lusitania  and  Persia  cases. 

(4)  We  are  usurping  the  trade  of  nations  that  are  now  en- 

gaged in  a  world- war  over  the  question  of  trade. 

(5)  We   must   be   prepared   to   defend   the   Monroe  Doctrine 

against: 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  87 

(a)  European  nations. 

(i)  Germany  and  other  countries  have  large  trade 
interests  in  South  America. 

(b)  Japan. 

(i)   The  Magdalena  Bay  incident, 
(ii)  The  enormous  settlements  in  California  and 
South  America. 

(6)  We  are  having  serious  trouble  with  Mexico,  which  may 

lead  to  intervention. 

(7)  The   guardianship   of   the   Panama   Canal   may   prove  a 

source  of  danger. 

!(B)   We  are  at  present  not  properly  protected. 
(1)   Our  Navy  is  inadequate. 

(a)  It   is  not   large  enough  to  protect  our  enormous 

coast-line. 

(i)  Report  of  Naval  Board,  1903. 
(ii)   Admiral  Fletcher's  report,  1916. 
(iii)   Testimony    of    naval    experts    before    Naval 
Committee,    printed    in    Representative 
Gardner's  Manual. 

|(b)  The   guardianship   of   the   Panama    Canal   necessi- 
tates an  increased  Navy. 

(c)  Our  ships  are  not  equipped  with  sufficient  men. 

(i)  Testimony  of  Admiral  Badger  before  Naval 
Committee,  printed  in  Representative 
Gardner's  Manual. 

[(2)   Our  coast  defenses  are  inadequate. 

(a)  Our  fort  guns  are  smaller  than  those  on  foreign 

war-ships. 

(i)  Our  biggest  guns  are  but  12-inch  guns,  while 
modern  dreadnoughts  carry  16-inch  guns. 

(b)  Our  fortifications  are  not  provided  with  sufficient 

ammunition. 

•    (i)  Testimony    of    General    Weaver,    printed    in 
Representative  Gardner's  Manual. 

(c)  We  have  not  a  sufficient  number  of  coast  forts. 

(i)   Report  of  Admiral  Fletcher,  1916. 
'(3)   Our  Army  is  inadequate. 

(a)  Our  Army  is  too  small  for  the  territory  it  has  to 

protect, 
(i)  Report  of  War  Department,  1916. 

(b)  We  have  no  efficient  Army  reserve  force. 

(i)  Report  of  War  College,  December,  1915. 

(c)  Our  Army  is  not  properly  equipped. 

(i)  Reports  of  Generals  Wood  and  Wotherspoon, 
printed  in  Representative  Gardner's 
Manual. 

II.  PBEPABEDNESS  is  PRACTICABLE. 

(A)  The  country  is   almost   a   unit  in   its   demands   for  increased 

armaments. 
( 1 )  Both  Democrats  and  Republicans  in  favor. 

(B)  Our  resources  are  unlimited. 


88  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

(C)   Any  plan  that  Congress  may  adopt  can  be  put  into  successful 

operation. 
(1)   Six  plans  have  already  been  proposed: 

(a)  The  Wilson  plan. 

(b)  The  War  College  plan. 

(c)  The  plan  of  Senator  Chamberlain. 

(d)  The  Roosevelt  plan. 

(e)  The  Regular  Army  plan. 

(f)  The  National  Guard  plan. 

III.  PREPAREDNESS  is  DESIRABLE. 

(A)  It  will  insure  peace. 

(1)   Our  strength  will  be  a  warning  to  our  enemies. 

(B)  It  will  promote  prosperity. 

(1)   Our  commerce  will  be  protected  on  the  seas. 

(C)  It  will  cause  peace  proposals  of  the  United  States  to  meet  with 

the  respect  of  European  nations. 

(1)  These  nations  will  realize  that  we  make  peace  proposals 
because  we  are  sincere  and  not  because  we  are 
inefficient. 

NEGATIVE 

I.  PREPAREDNESS  is  UNNECESSARY. 

(A)  War  is  improbable. 

( 1 )  There  is  no  reason  for  war. 

(a)  All  our  differences  can  be  settled  by  diplomacy. 

(i)   Hocking  case. 

(b)  Pan- Americanism   will   insure   a   universal   respect 

for  the  Monroe  Doctrine. 

(2)  We  have  no  entangling  alliances. 

(3)  The  strongest  nations  of  the  world  are  bankrupt. 

(a)   The  foremost  nations  of  the  world  are  compelled  to 
borrow  from  the  United  States. 

(4)  Attack  is  improbable. 

,(a)   The  United  States  is  geographically  isolated  from 

the  rest  of  the  world. 
\b)  An  enemy's  ships  would  find  it  impossible  to  secure 

supplies  so  far  from  their  base. 

(B)  Our  present  armaments  are  sufficient  for  our  needs. 

(1)  We  have  a  Navy  strong  enough  to  meet  the  best  fleet  an 

enemy  could  send  to  our  shores. 

(a)   Testimony    of    Admiral    Blue    before    Naval    Com- 
mittee, February  8,  1916. 

(2)  Our  Army  is  adequate  for  our  needs. 

(a)   Mexico,  Philippine  Islands. 

(3)  Our  coast  defenses  are  adequate. 

(a)  We  are  at  present  fortifying  points  that  hitherto 

were  unfortified. 
( i )   Rockaway. 

(b)  We  are  building  16-in  guns  for  use  in  our  forts. 

(c)  The   present  war   has   shown   the   impossibility  of 

capturing  coast  forts, 
(i)  The  Dardanelles. 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  89 

(d)   Testimony   of   General   Miles    before   Senate   Com- 
mittee, February  8,  1916. 
(4)   We  are  able  to  manufacture  more  war  munitions  than 

any  great  enemy  could  transport. 

(a)   We    are    exporting    a    tremendous    supply    to    the 
Allies. 

II.  PREPAREDNESS  is  IMPRACTICABLE. 

(A)  The  cost  would  be  enormous  and  would  impose  a  needless  burden 

of  taxation  upon  the  people  of  the  United  States. 

(1)   We   already    spend    more    for    defense    than    any    other 

country, 
(a)   Comparison  of  budgets. 

(B)  The  sentiment  of  the  people  is   against  any  plan  of  enforced 

preparedness. 

(C)  We  would  be  unable  to  procure  men  to  give  up  their  occupations 

for  military  training  where  there  is  no  clearly  defined  need. 

(D)  No   proper   mode  of    providing   the   money   necessary    for   pre- 

preparedness  has  yet  been  proposed. 

(E)  All  the  plans  for  military  and  naval  increase  are  faulty. 

HI.  PBEPAREDNESS  is  UNDESIRABLE. 

(A)  It  would  cause  us  to  lose  an  excellent  opportunity  for  securing 

universal  peace. 

(1)  If  the  United  States  should  increase  its  armaments  and 
then  make  proposals  to  other  nations  to  disarm,  it 
would  cause  these  nations  to  suspect  our  motives. 

( B )  It    would    antagonize    other    nations    and    start    an    enormous 

building  contest. 

(1)  Other  nations  would  be  compelled  to  increase  their  arma- 
ments to  preserve  a  balance  of  power. 

(C)  The  money  necessary  to  provide  further  preparedness  could  be 

used  in  better  projects. 
{ 1 )   It  could  be  used  to  establish  a  permanent  world  peace. 

(D)  It  would  provoke  war. 

(1)  Other  nations  would  fear  that  this  sudden  increase  in 
our  military  and  naval  strength  would  prove  detri- 
mental to  them,  and  they  would  attack  us  before  we 
got  too  strong. 

(E)  Industrial  progress  is  better  than  military  preparedness. 
<F)  It  would  result  in  militarism. 

GENERAL  REFERENCES 

"  Defenseless  America,"  Hudson  Maxim. 
Report  of  Naval  Board,  1903. 
Report  of  Admiral  Fletcher,  January,  1916. 
Report  of  Major-General  Wood,  January,  1916. 
Report  of  War  Department,  December,  1915. 

Testimony  of  Naval  and  Military  Officers  in  House  of  Representatives, 
contained  in  Representative  Gardner's  Manual. 
Congressional  Record. 
Reader's  Guide. 


90  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

"LITEBABY  DIGEST"  REFEBENCES. 

Vol.  49,  Dec.  5,  1914,  p.  1107. 

Vol.  49,  Dec.  19,  1914,  pp.  1205-7. 

Vol.  49,  Dec.  26,  1914,  pp.  1267-8. 

Vol.  50,  Jan.  23,  1915,  pp.  137-8. 

Vol.  50,  June  5,  1915,  pp.  1314-16. 

Vol.  50,  June  26,  1915,  pp.  1529-30. 

Vol.  51,  Aug.  7,  1915,  pp.  236-7. 

Vol.  51,  Sept.  11,  1915,  pp.  527-8. 

Vol.  51,  Nov.  20,  1915,  pp.  1143-5,  1162-3. 

Vol.  51,  Nov.  27,  1915,  pp.  1207-9,  1209-10,  1211,  1213-14. 

Vol.  51,  Dec.  4,  1915,  pp.  1267-8. 

Vol.  51,  Dec.  11,  1915,  pp.  1333-6. 

Vol.  51,  Dec.  18,  1915,  pp.  1411-14. 

Vol.  51,  Dec.  25,  1915,  pp.  1459-61,  1462,  1463-4,  1467-9. 

Vol.  52,  Jan.  1,  1916,  pp.  6-7,  11-12. 

Vol.  52,  Jan.  8,  1916,  pp.  51-53,  53-54,  55-56,  58-59,  60. 

Vol.  52,  Jan.  15,  1916,  pp.  101-3. 

Vol.  52,  Jan.  22,  1916,  pp.  157-8,  161-3,  165-8. 

Vol.  52,  Jan.  29,  1916,  pp.  213-16,  219-20. 

Vol.  52,  Feb.  5,  1916,  pp.  269-70. 

Extracts  from  Argument  of  the  REV.  WM.  CARTER,  D.D.,  Pastor  Throep 
Avenue  Presbyterian  Church,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,  in  public  debate  with 
the  Rev.  Washington  Gladden,  D.D.,  of  Columbus,  Ohio,  at  the 
Broadway  Tabernacle,  Fifty-sixth  Street  and  Broadway,  New  York 
City,  February  8,  1916. 

THE  NECESSITY  OF  PREPAREDNESS 

War  is  the  world's  great  anachronism.  From  the  cradle  of  savagery  to 
the  crowning  of  mind  and  manhood  it  has  always  been  an  anachronism, 
for  each  day  marks  progress  and  every  evening  is  better  than  the  morning 
as  man  reaches  out  into  higher  and  to  nobler  things.  Soldiers  and 
statesmen  even,  who  are  said  by  some  to  make  of  war  a  business,  by  ho 
means  love  it  but  long  with  all  the  rest  of  the  world  for  its  final  abolition. 
Sherman's  laconic  saying:  "War  is  Hell,"  has  become  historic.  Grant  had 
the  same  hatred  for  it  and  Chinese  Gordon  prayed  daily,  even  in  the 
midst  of  his  campaigns,  that  its  power  might  be  forever  broken.  Lord 
Brougham  characterized  it  as  "  the  greatest  of  human  crimes  including 
indeed  all  others,"  Charles  Sumner  spoke  of  it  as  "  unjust,  un-Christian, 
monstrous,"  while  Warburton  called  it  "  the  blackest  mischief  ever 
breathed  from  Hell,  its  demons  marching  with  every  army  and  bivouacking 
in  every  camp." 

It  is  not  hard  then  to  prove  that  War  is  an  anachronism  and  always 
has  been,  but  in  proving  it  we  are  admitting  that  it  is  an  entity,  a  fact 
that  must  be  faced  and  reckoned  with  in  all  the  affairs  of  life. 

"The  time  is  out  of  joint:     O  cursed  spite 
That  ever  I  was  born  to  set  it  right." 

That  is  the  hard  thing  for  us  who  maintain  the  argument  for  Pre- 
paredness. We  know  the  time  is  out  of  joint.  We  think  that  our  Pacifist 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  91 

friends  were  born  to  set  it  right  just  as  much  as  we  are,  but  if  they  will 
not  do  it  then  we  will  have  to  do  it  ourselves,  and  by  vicarious  labor, 
taking  their  burdens  upon  our  own  shoulders.  Men  may  cry  "  Peace ! 
Peace!  but  there  is  no  Peace."  War  is  a  monstrous,  horrid,  bloody  fact, 
and  however  distasteful  the  task  it  is  something  to  which  we  all  must 
set  ourselves  if  we  would  hasten  its  abolishment.  (Applause.) 

It  is  not  merely  the  men,  however,  who  have  caused  Pacifism  to  fail, 
it  is  also  their  method  which  is  "  the  dream  of  the  dreamer  who  dreams 
that  he's  been  dreaming," — the  method  of  moral  suasion.  It  is  a  beautiful 
theory,  it  is  hard  indeed  to  say  anything  against  it,  as  everyone  would 
rather  speak  in  favor  of  it  and  see  it  succeed,  but  the  hard,  cold  facts  of 
history  and  experience  show  us  that  it  has  failed  a  id  failed  miserably. 

Man  is  naturally  a  reasoning  being,  he  likes  i  ^ntiment,  but  he  likes  it 
in  the  right  place.  If  a  mad  dog  attacks  him  an  he  has  a  club,  he  will 
not  sentimentalize  with  the  dog  and  say  "Nice  .)oggie!  Good  Doggie! 
Doggie  mustn't  bite !  "  but  he  will  promptly  club  aie  dog,  and  if  the  dogs 
about  him  are  particularly  inclined  to  be  vicious  he  will  see  to  it  that 
he  always  has  a  club  at  hand,  for  even  vicious  dogs  are  particularly  nice 
to  a  man  who  carries  a  club  and  brandishes  it  occasionally.  If  you  say: 
"  O,  Doctor,  that  isn't  a  very  nice  illustration  to  apply  to  human  beings !  " 
I  would  remind  you  of  the  woman  who  once  said :  "  The  more  I  see  of 
men  the  more  I  like  dogs!  "  and  that  I  am  fully  within  my  rights  in  using 
such  an  illustration  when  you  remember  Shakespeare's  reference  to  "  the 
dogs  of  war,"  and  that  I  am  speaking  now  of  war  and  not  of  the  society 
for  the  prevention  of  cruelty  to  animals!  But  to  be  eminently  fair,  let 
me  apply  the  illustration  to  human  beings  and  say  that  if  a  man  breaks 
into  your  house  you  do  not  sentimentalize  with  him  over  the  moral  wrong 
of  his  kleptomaniacal  proclivities  as  he  tries  to  brain  you,  but  you 
promptly  use  the  Muldoon  treatment,  if  you  have  had  adequate  preparation, 
biff  him  in  the  solar  plexus  and  "  end  it  all  with  a  bare  " — knock  out,  if  you 
possibly  can !  ( Great  applause. ) 

Now  in  this  world  of  ours  we  have  to  deal  with  dogs  in  human  a» 
well  as  animal  form,  and  as  St.  Paul  said,  "  Beware  of  dogs !  "  it  is  well 
for  us  to  heed  the  Apostle's  warning  and  be  adequately  prepared!  Senti- 
mentalism  will  not  do  here.  We  are  dealing  with  the  primitive  passions 
of  man  which  are  "earthly,  sensual,  devilish,"  and  that  can  be  controlled 
only  by  force  and  by  a  wholesome  respect  for  law  that  is  backed  by  force. 
Therefore  this  other  group  of  Pacifists  of  which  I  have  spoken,  in  the 
hopeless  minority  as  far  as  the  house  of  the  Pacifists  is  concerned,  but 
backed  by  the  great  majority  in  this  practical  reasoning  world  of  ours, — 
believes  that  adequate  preparation  will  bring  in  the  blessings  and  the  vic- 
tories of  Peace  much_socmer_  and  more  permanently  than  the  mawkish 
sentimentalism  that  has  been  "so  long"  employed.  At  any  rate,  isn't  it  fair, 
gentlemen,  to  at  least  try  it,  since  the  other  has  proved  so  disastrous  a 
failure?  (Applause.) 

Whenever  Preparedness  is  mentioned  there  rises,  of  course,  that 
Banquo  ghost  of  Prussian  Militarism  that  will  not  down,  but  the  ghost 
fearers  make  no  distinction  between  Preparedness  for  War  and  Prepared- 
ness against  War.  "No  nation,"  says  the  Pacifist,  and  I  am  quoting, 
"can  speak  softly,  which  carries  a  big  stick."  As  well  say  that  a  father 
cannot  speak  softly  to  his  child,  for  he  carries  the  "  big  stick  "  of  authority 
and  discipline,  as  he  is  told  to  by  the  Lord,  and  is  told  not  to  spare  it 


92  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

when  necessary  lest  the  child  be  spoiled.  As  well  say  that  the  Lord  cannot 
speak  softly  to  His  children  because  He  carries  the  rod  of  authority  and 
says :  "  If  ye  will  not  for  all  this  hearken  unto  me  then  I  will  punish 
you  seven  times  more  for  your  sins.  And  I  will  break  the  pride  of  your 
power  and  I  will  make  your  Heaven  as  iron  and  your  earth  as  brass." 
(Lev.  26:  18-19.)  "  Big  Stick!  "  "  Big  Stick!  "  It  seems  to  me  that  the 
Pacifist  had  better  "  talk  softly "  when  he  talks  about  the  big  stick,  lest 
men  again  laugh  him  out  of  court!  (Great  applause.) 

The  Pacifist  says,  and  again  I  quote :  "  They  say  that  Preparedness 
will  avert  War,  but  Germany  was  prepared,  France  was  prepared,  Belgium 
was  prepared,  England  was  prepared,  and  yet  there  was  War!  "  Here 
again  the  arrogance  and  vaulting  ambition  of  the  Pacifist  has  o'erleaped 
itself,  for  he  knows,  unless  he  is  a  fool,  that  though  England  was  prepared 
as  to  her  navy,  she  was  not  prepared  as  to  her  army,  and  had  she  been, 
he  knows  there  would  have  been  no  war. 

For  years  Lord  Roberts,  that  grand  old  man  of  England's  military 
history,  had  been  begging  Parliament  to  increase  her  army.  He  had 
definitely  said  he  was  afraid  of  German  aggression.  He  warned  them 
with  prophetic  utterance  that  war  would  be  inevitable  unless  they  in- 
creased their  army  to  something  like  the  power  of  Germany's  forces,  but 
all  to  no  avail.  The  country  laughed  at  him,  and  I  confess  that  I  was 
one  who  felt  that  he  was  unduly  anxious,  that  in  his  old  age  he  was 
having  obsessions  and  hallucinations,  but  "  little  Bobs "  before  he  died 
had  the  melancholy  duty  thrust  upon  him  of  standing  amid  the  blood 
and  sickening  welter  of  the  crushed  and  mangled  bodies  of  England's 
bravest  sons,  "  somewhere  in  France,"  who  had  paid  the  penalty  of  unpre- 
paredness!  If  England's  army  had  been  as  well  prepared  upon  the  land 
as  her  navy  was  upon  the  sea  there  is  not  a  man  with  an  atom  of  sense 
but  what  realizes  this  awful  war  would  never  have  been.  (Great  ap- 
plause. ) 

Again,  however,  the  Pacifist  rises  to  remark:  "They  say  that  big 
armies  are  necessary  just  as  life  insurance,  but  the  insurance  is  never 
paid!"  Isn't  it?  Ask  France  if  she  paid  it  in  1870!  Ask  Germany  if 
she  isn't  using  the  insurance  money  collected  then  for  the  prosecution  of 
her  newer  plans  in  this  great  war!  Ask  Belgium  if  she  didn't  pay  when 
Germany  levied  upon  Brussels,  Antwerp  and  other  large  cities  that  still 
had  gold  within  their  coffers!  Ask  Germany  again  how  many  millions 
insurance  she  drew  out  of  bleeding  Belgium,  not  in  blood  and  tears  but  in 
good,  hard  cash,  and  then  "  go  way  back  and  sit  down "  when  you  say 
the  insurance  is  never  paid!  (Applause.) 

Once  more  from  the  tombs  a  doleful  voice  as  the  Pacifist  cries :  "  The 
man  is  abroad  asking  the  question,  *  Do  you  believe  in  a  police  force  ?  * 
The  answer  of  the  Pacifist  is  *  yes.' "  Then  if  you  do,  Mr.  Pacifist,  you 
have  yielded  the  whole  question  of  Peace  through  preparation  against  War, 
for  that  is  all  that  this  nation  wants  today,  an  adequate  police  force,  not 
to  wage  war,  but  to  keep  the  peace.  But  the  Pacifist  cries:  "A  police 
force  does  not  exist  to  fight  another  police  force.  New  York  does  not  pit 
her  police  force  against  the  police  force  of  Boston."  No,  but  she  would 
if  the  police  force  of  Boston  came  to  New  York  to  try  to  turn  our  police 
force  out!  There  would  be  a  nice  little  fight  on,  then  you  may  be  sure, 
and  "  owld  Oireland  "  would  give  a  good  account  of  herself  in  her  so-long 
unusurped  place  in  New  York  City's  Government !  "  Nor  does  the  New 
York  State  Militia,"  and  again  I  quote,  "pit  itself  against  that  of  Con- 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  93 

necticut  or  New  Jersey!  "  No,  but  she  would  Tery  quickly  if  Connecticut 
or  New  Jersey  rose  in  rebellion  as  did  the  Southern  States  against  the 
Northern  ones  in  1861.  Your  arguments  are  as  empty  as  a  belfry,  Mr. 
Pacifist,  save  for  the  bats,  and  they  always  roost  in  vacant  places!  You 
are  hoist  on  your  own  petard!  (Laughter  and  applause.) 

But  still  further  says  our  Pacifist:  "We  must  free  ourselves  from  the 
wizardry  of  military  and  naval  experts.  They  are  the  last  men  in  the 
world  to  act  as  safe  counsellors  of  nations."  Well,  if  thau  is  so,  we 
ministers  must  step  down  from  our  pulpits  and  let  people  who  know 
nothing  about  preaching  preach.  The  business  man  must  give  up  his 
business  and  let  those  who  know  nothing  about  it  run  it  for  him.  The 
lawyer  must  get  out  of  his  office  and  let  a  half-baked  fool  from  Mat- 
teawan  prepare  his  briefs.  The  man  who  knows  most  about  his  business 
is  proven  by  that  fact  to  be  less  capable  of  running  it,  so  let  us  address 
ourselves  to  the  things  that  we  know  nothing  about  and  all  will  go 
merry  as  a  wedding  bell!  Strange  sentiments  these,  are  they  not?  But 
every  one  has  been  literally  quoted  from  the  fulminations  of  the  Pacifists 
as  they  have  appeared  from  time  to  time.  (Applause.) 

The  whole  trouble  with  the  Pacifist  is  this  intellectual  arrogance  of 
which  I  have  already  spoken,  which  has,  alas,  so  little  basis — in  fact,  when 
the  Bertillon  system  is  applied  for  his  intellectual  measurements!  He 
knows  more  about  war  than  Cyrus,  Alexander,  Caesar,  Charlemagne  and 
Napoleon  all  rolled  in  one!  He  knows  more  about  naval  affairs  than  John 
Paul  Jones,  Lord  Nelson,  Admiral  Dewey  and  the  whole  naval  college! 
He  knows  more  about  theology  than  Thomas  Aquinas,  Tom  Hall,  Lyman 
Beecher,  and  Lyman  Abbott  all  put  together!  He  knows  more  about 
statesmanship  than  Lord  John  Russell,  Pitt  the  Elder,  Pitt  the  Younger, 
Woodrow  Wilson  and  Theodore  Roosevelt,  even  if  the  combined  wisdom  of 
these  mighty  sons  of  Anak  were  poured  into  one  Gargantuan  cranium 
and  dared  to  talk  against  him!  Know?  Why  Hamlet  would  never  have 
dared  to  say  to  him  as  he  said  to  Horatio: 

"  There  are  more  things  in  heaven  and  earth,  Horatio, 
Than  are  dreamed  of  in  your  philosophy." 

for  he  knows  it  all!      (Laughter  and  applause.) 

One  other  thing  I  would  say  before  I  finish  with  the  Pacifists,  for 
these  be  parlous  times  indeed  if  we  cannot  speak  our  mind  against  such 
things  as  we  feel  detrimental  and  inimical  to  our  country's  welfare. 
"  Look  at  the  United  States,"  he  says,  "  spanning  a  continent,  guarded  on 
the  East  and  West  by  God's  two  greatest  oceans."  This  is  the  nearest, 
by  the  way,  that  I  have  ever  heard  a  Pacifist  come  to  a  genuine,  simon- 
pure,  Fourth  of  July,  spread-eagle  speech !  Yes,  look  at  the  United  States ! 
Too  long  we  have  talked  of  these  3,000  miles  of  ocean  on  the  East  and 
8,000  miles  on  the  West  as  though  this  gave  us  security  and  all  was 
well.  Do  you  know,  Mr.  Pacifist,  that  according  to  the  actual  transport 
facilities  already  at  hand  in  these  other  nations,  Russia  can  land  on  the 
coast  of  this  country,  40,000  men  within  twenty  days?  Austria-Hungary, 
75,000  men  within  fifteen  days?  Japan,  95,000  within  twenty-two  days? 
France  170,000  within  eighteen  days?  Germany,  400,000  within  fifteen 
days  ?  and  Great  Britain,  665,000  within  fifteen  days,  if  she  had  the  men 
on  hand  as  she  has  now?  These  are  not  guess  figures,  remember,  but  the 
application  of  pure  mathematics  based  upon  the  transport  service  that 
these  nations  already  possess,  (Applause.) 


$4*  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

But  the  Pacifist  says:  "Where  would  our  navy  be  meanwhile?" 
Well,  it  would  be  undoubtedly  searching  for  the  enemy,  as  the  enemy 
would  be  searching  for  it,  but  the  enemy  on  finding  it  would  have  guns  of 
a  fifteen-  and  seventeen-mile  range  that  could  destroy  the  whole  of  our  fleet 
before  it  got  within  range  with  its  own  smaller  guns.  "  Where,  though," 
the  Pacifist  still  cries,  "  would  be  our  shore  batteries  protecting  our  great 
coast  line?"  Well,  they  would  be  ready  for  work  just  as  soon  as  the 
enemies'  ships  came  within  range,  but  since  they  have  only  an  eight-mile 
range  and  the  enemies'  ships  would  have  at  least  a  fifteen-mile  range,  you 
can  easily  see  how  our  shore  batteries  and  forts  wrould  be  put  out  of  com- 
mission before  a  single  shot  of  theirs  could  take  effect.  "  Then,"  the 
Pacifist  cries,  "  where  would  be  our  army  of  unbeatable  Americans  ? " 
Well,  the  30,000,  which  is  all  that  we  could  muster  in  any  one  point, 
together  with  say  another  30,000  of  militia,  would  be  lined  up  on  the 
shore  waiting  for  the  approach  of  that  enemy,  and  if  they  dared  to  make 
a  single  hostile  move,  those  same  great  guns  would  mow  them  down  like 
wheat  before  a  giant  reaper,  while  the  hostile  troops  were  disembarking 
to  finish  the  awful  bloody  massacre. 

You  see  now  how  I  have  smoked  the  Pacifist  out.  By  his  own  admis- 
sion he  feels  there  must  be  something  to  stop  invasion  which  he  realizes, 
with  us,  is  possible.  If  this  be  admitted,  then  it's  only  a  question  of 
means.  He  thinks  the  ocean  will  do  it,  we  have  shown  it  will  not.  What 
then  will  do  it,  and  how  can  we  have  the  blessings  of  Peace  assured  to  us? 
My  answer  is  that  we  can  only  have  them  through  an  adequate  army  and 
navy  fully  drilled  and  plentifully  armed.  (Great  applause.) 

Figures  seem  foolish  today  after  so  many  repetitions  of  them,  but 
though  we  are  the  largest  great  power  in  the  world  today  in  regard  to 
territory  except  Russia,  with  the  largest  coast  of  all  nations,  we  have 
the  smallest  army  and  only  the  third  largest  navy,  with  France  and  Japan 
rapidly  crowding  us  into  fifth  place.  With  an  adequate  navy  it  might 
be  possible  for  us  to  repel  invasion  by  our  fleet,  but  when  we  think  of 
our  vast  coast  line  and  our  Island  possessions  8,000  miles  away,  where 
part  of  our  fleet  must  always  be  kept,  when  we  think  of  the 
Pacific  that  must  always  be  patrolled,  or  the  Atlantic  in  the  same 
way,  with  a  Pacific  invasion,  it  reduces  what  we  have  at  least  one-half. 
When  we  also  think  of  our  guns  outranged  both  on  our  ships  and  in  our 
coast  fortifications,  it  reduces  our  chance  of  repelling  the  invader  to  an 
irreducible  minimum,  as  we  couldn't  well  have  less  and  claim  that  we 
had  any  at  all.  The  strength  of  our  navy  in  ships  is  15  dreadnaughts,  as 
opposed  to  46  in  England,  28  in  Germany,  with  Russia  and  France  owning 
11  and  12  respectively,  and  Japan  and  Italy  10  each.  Many  of  these 
vships,  remember  too,  outrange  all  our  guns  bath  on  our  ships  and  in  our 
coast  fortifications,  so  that  it  would  be  possible  for  a  battle  cruiser  of 
the  Queen  Elizabeth  type,  of  which  England  has  four,  to  bombard  us 
and  actually  destroy  all  New  York  at  a  fifteen  mile  range,  while  the  most 
powerful  guns  we  have  at  Sandy  Hook,  Fort  Hamilton  and  Fort  Wads- 
worth,  have  only  an  eight-mile  range,  with  our  ship's  guns  of  correspond- 
ingly small  calibre  and  power. 

Our  army,  as  compared  with  that  of  other  nations,  makes  an  infinitely 
worse  showing,  having  only  93,000  men  with  but  48,000  available  for 
United  States  service  as  compared  with  the  peace  footings  of  Russia  with 
1,200,000  men;  Germany,  830,000;  France,  750,000;  Austria-Hungary, 
424,000;  Italy,  300,000;  Great  Britain,  250,000,  and  Japan,  225,000.  Our 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  95 

equipment  as  to  field  artillery  is  also  the  smallest,  the  United  States 
having  but  834  guns,  as  opposed  to  Russia  with  6,000;  Germany,  5,000; 
France,  4,800;  Austria,  2,365;  Italy,  1,500;  Japan,  1,250,  and  England, 
1,000. 

As  to  submarines  and  aeroplanes,  we  have  58  of  the  former  as  opposed 
to  almost  300  on  the  part  of  England  and  Germany,  though  the  exact 
figures  have  not  been  made  known.  For  aeroplanes  we  have  more  definite 
figures,  which  are:  Belgium,  100;  Austria  and  England,  400  each;  Russia, 
800;  Germany,  1,000;  France,  1,400;  while  America,  the  home  of  the 
Wright  Brothers,  where  the  aeroplane  was  invented  and  perfected,  has  the 
enormous  sum  of  23  aeroplanes — and  they  are  not  all  in  working  con- 
dition !  ( Laughter. ) 

What  Jacob  then  has  stolen  in  and  taken  away  our  birthright?  By 
what  sheer  stupidity  and  crass  folly  have  we  been  brought  to  such  a  pass? 
By  the  frothy  vaporings  of  the  disarmament  Pacifist  largely !  By  the  thick- 
skulled  arguments  that  mere  possession  of  a  weapon  incites  the  use  of  it  I 
If  such  were  true,  our  policemen  would  be  going  berserk  every  day,  shooting 
up  the  towns  they  are  set  to  guard  and  shooting  down  innocent  people 
by  the  thousands,  because  they  have  a  gun  and  know  how  to  use  it.  By 
the  same  sign,  I,  as  peaceful  as  I  am,  having  a  Winchester  and  knowing 
how  to  hit  the  bull's-eye  as  well  as  the  average  man,  would  be  on  the 
warpath  every  day,  yet  I  have  never  shot  a  living  thing;  and  hundreds 
of  thousands  of  policemen,  though  often  under  great  provocation,  have 
never  drawn  their  guns  except  for  target  practice!  (Applause.) 

Away  with  such  sophistries  and  weak-minded  delusions!  Away  with 
them  speedily  or  our  country  will  be  taken  away  from  us!  We  have  a 
duty  to  perform,  a  sacred  duty  to  our  own,  and  if  we  perform  it  not  the 
Lord  God  Omnipotent  will  hold  us  to  a  strict  account  at  the  last,  and 
meanwhile  we  will  be  a  by-word  and  a  hissing  among  true  red-blooded 
men.  "  If  any  provide  not  for  his  own  and  especially  for  those  of  his 
own  household,  he  hath  denied  the  faith  and  is  worse  than  an  infidel." 
(1  Tim.  5:8.)  If  we  would  take  care  of  our  own,  if  we  would  be  true 
to  the  trust  God  has  reposed  in  us  as  the  natural  guardians  of  our  loved 
ones,  our  homes  and  our  native  land,  we  must  make  adequate  provision 
for  it,  we  must  have  men  and  ships,  arms  and  munitions,  and  inspire 
that  wholesome  respect  for  authority  and  power  which  always  safeguards 
peace  and  keeps  all  safe  within  our  borders!  (Applause.) 

How  then  is  this  to  be  accomplished?  By  taxation  on  the  one  hand 
and  universal  military  service  on  the  other,  that  will  neither  burden  us 
with  onerous  or  odious  taxes  nor  with  a  large  and  arrogant  military  class. 
Surely  if  Germany  with  only  60,000,000  population  can  support  an  army 
of  830,000,  we,  with  our  100,000,000  population  can  support  an  army  of 
225,000  without  having  any  fear  of  Prussian  Militarism  or  a  military 
class  that  would  be  a  menace  to  the  nation.  Surely  if  England  can  afford 
46  battleships  of  the  latest  type  with  her  moderate  wealth  beside  our 
own,  we,  the  richest  nation  in  tlfe  world,  can  afford  the  same  number 
when  we  need  them,  even  more  than  she,  with  all  our  thousands  of  miles 
of  coast  line  and  our  far-flung  Island  possessions.  Yet  it's  easier  to  get 
a  million-dollar  post  office  than  a  torpedo  boat — though  it  costs  less! 
It's  easier  to  get  a  deepened  waterway  on  the  Mississippi  or  Missouri  than 
a  modern  coast  defense  gun  that  would  shoot  far  enough  to  do  some 
good!  Ifs  easier  to  get  a  hundred  thousand  men  to  run  for  office  than 
to  get  an  extra  hundred  thousand  voted  for  our  army  aud  navy  so  much 


96  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

in  need  of  men.  If  Peace  is  sweet  and  liberty  is  dear,  we  must  get  those 
things,  however,  and  get  them  soon  or  we  will  lose  all  we  have  and  be 
buried  in  profound  oblivion.  (Applause.) 

Congress  then  must  give  men  and  measures  and  that  right  early  if 
we  are  to  succeed  in  holding  that  of  which  we  are  so  proud  and  keep 
America  in  its  present  peaceful  and  secure  position.  The  remedy  sug- 
gested as  to  money  is  not  hard  to  meet  with  all  our  wealth  that  is  piling 
up  in  such  leaps  and  bounds  that  the  annual  increase  is  four  billion 
dollars,  while  the  total  wealth  of  the  United  States  has  reached  the 
enormous  proportion  of  130  billion. 

The  remedy  as  to  men  is  not  a  hard  one  to  solve  when  we  remember 
that  by  the  census  of  1910  there  were  949,876  men  of  twenty  years  of  age 
and  889,036  men  twenty-one  years  of  age  in  the  United  States.  Again 
statistics  tell  us  by  the  law  of  averages  that  we  can  depend  upon  at  least 
850,000  young  men  attaining  their  majority  each  year  and  an  aggregate 
of  many  millions  being  in  our  public  schools  and  colleges  at  all  times 
between  the  ages  of  ten  to  twenty-one.  Now  the  plan  that  would  seem 
most  feasible  is  to  adopt  that  which  has  already  been  adopted  in  Switzer- 
land and  has  laid  no  burden  upon  the  people  but  has  given  them,  with 
only  3,500,000  population,  an  army  of  470,000  men  fully  armed  and 
drilled  and  ready  at  a  few  hours'  notice  to  mobilize  at  their  country's 
call,  though  they  have  practically  no  standing  army  whatever.  That  plan 
is  to  put  universal  military  training  into  all  schools  under  competent 
government  instructors,  to  take  the  boys  to  summer  camps  for  further 
drill  and  experience,  which  shall  be  obligatory  only  during  their  school 
years  and  part  of  their  vacations,  except  as  the  men  shall,  in  their 
vacation  period  also,  spend  a  few  days  with  the  colors  so  that  they  may 
be  kept  in  condition.  With  such  a  system  we  could  at  all  times  have 
a  reserve  of  a  million  young  men  or  more  fully  trained  by  ten  or  twelve 
years'  drill  in  their  school  experience,  and  a  second  reserve  of  millions  of 
men  who  have  had  the  same  training  in  their  youth  and  have  kept  in 
touch  with  their  military  leaders,  fulfilling  all  the  easy  requirements  of 
the  plan.  This,  with  a  standing  army  of  225,000,  which  is  the  largest 
number  suggested  by  military  authorities,  and  an  adequate  navy  to  equal 
that  of  any  navy  in  the  world,  would  insure  peace  and  preserve  prosperity, 
would  give  our  sons  the  right  training,  not  so  much  for  war  but  for  peace, 
making  them  healthier,  more  manly,  more  aggressive  and  better  fitted  for 
all  that  life  may  bring  to  them  in  the  way  of  opportunity  and  preferment. 
Thus  will  we  inspire  respect  throughout  the  world,  be  left  unmolested  in 
our  rights  and  privileges  and  enjoy  the  blessings  and  victories  of  a  lasting 
Peace,  which  our  own  hands  and  forethought  have  insured.  (Great 
applause. ) 

Reply  of  DR.  CARTER  to  DR.  GLADDEN  in  the  Debate  on  Preparedness 
at  the  Broadway  Tabernacle,  Fifty-sixth  Street  and  Broadway, 
Tuesday,  February  8th,  1916. 

MB.  CHAIBMAN,  LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN: 

I  had  expected  that  Dr.  Gladden  would  use  the  arguments  concerning 
the  bias  and  interest  of  the  military  and  naval  men  and  the  arms  and 
munitions  manufacturers  in  the  subject  of  preparedness  and  war  because 
of  the  financial  interest  involved.  I  also  fully  expected  him  to  touch  upon 
the  expense  of  the  whole  matter  and  the  necessary  burden  of  taxation  that 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  97 

would  be  laid  upon  the  people  as  well  as  to  take  up  as  he  did  the 
religious  aspects  of  the  case,  the  un-Christian  nature  of  war  and  the 
terrible  sacrifice  of  life,  robbing  our  homes  of  their  noblest  sons  and  the 
motherhood  of  the  race  of  their  most  loved  children.  I  also  naturally 
anticipated  his  peroration  as  to  the  blessings  of  Peace  and  the  need  of  it 
throughout  all  the  world.  Therefore,  in  my  reply,  I  wish  to  take  up  these 
matters  and  answer  them  as  briefly  as  possible  in  the  short  time  that  is 
left  to  me. 

First,  as  to  the  matter  of  the  self-interest  on  the  part  01  the  military 
and  naval  men  and  the  arms  and  munition  manufacturers,  let  me  say 
that  it  is  one  of  the  weakest  as  well  as  the  most  prejudiced  and  unfair 
arguments  that  the  Pacifist  has  ever  advanced  in  this  whole  controversy. 
To  dare  to  say  that  men,  because  they  make  a  profit  out  of  war,  would 
therefore  plunge  whole  nations  into  it  without  cause,  is  one  of  the  most 
un-Christian  as  well  as  illogical  arguments  that  the  world  has  ever 
heard.  ( Applause. ) 

As  soon  might  we  say  that  the  undertaker  would  employ  a  poisoner, 
a  murderer  and  a  thug  to  increase  his  business,  or  that  the  doctor  would 
sow  the  seeds  of  disease  rather  than  health  among  his  patients  that  he 
might  profit  more  by  his  practice!  As  I  quoted  in  my  opening  arguments, 
soldiers  themselves,  such  as  Sherman,  Grant,  Chinese  Gordon  and  many 
others,  have  always  expressed  their  horror  of  war,  and  since  these  men, 
are  taking  their  lives  in  their  own  hands  in  entering  war,  we  certainly 
ought  to  give  them  the  Christian  credit  and  fraternal  trust  that  they 
are  doing  it  not  for  personal  aggrandizement,  but  for  the  good  of  the 
nation  which  they  love.  Arms  and  munitions  manufacturers  also,  though 
profiting  from  the  dread  disease  of  war,  are  profiting  no  more  than  the 
doctor  and  the  undertaker  through  the  evils  of  bodily  disease  in  their 
lines  of  work  and  are  certainly  no  more  to  be  accused  of  fratricide,  paracide 
and  devilish  massacre.  The  one  thought  is  just  as  illogical  as  the  other 
and  I  have  said  unworthy  to  be  placed  in  the  arguments  of  our  Pacifist 
friends.  (Loud  applause.) 

The  question  of  disinterestedness  is  again  brought  up  by  Dr.  Gladden, 
as  it  is  by  all  the  Pacifists  when  they  say  that  the  manufacture  of  all 
arms  and  munitions  should  be  taken  out  of  private  hands  and  placed  in  the 
hands  of  the  Government,  but  here  again  history  as  well  as  logic  proves 
that  their  arguments  are  unwarranted.  Look  back  over  the  history  of 
other  nations  as  well  as  our  own,  and  you  will  find  that  wherever  these 
things  have  been  taken  over  entirely  by  the  Government  there  has  been 
less  progress  than  in  others  and  more  blunders,  resulting  ofttimes  in  great 
accidents  and  awful  loss  of  life. 

Take  as  an  example  the  French  Government.  For  over  a  hundred 
years  it  has  made  all  of  its  own  gunpowder,  though  its  gun  works  have 
always  been  under  private  capital.  The  French  guns,  as  we  know  in  the 
present  war,  are  far  ahead  of  those  of  all  the  other  Allies,  and  are  next 
to  those  of  Germany,  which  are  made  also  by  private  enterprise  in  the 
great  Krupp  works.  Her  gunpowder,  however,  has  been  under  question 
for  many  years  both  as  to  its  strength  and  efficiency  as  well  as  to  its 
deterioration  and  decomposition.  So  much  is  this  so  that  the  two  battle- 
ships, the  Jena  and  La  Liberte  that  were  blown  up  by  spontaneous  com- 
bustion in  their  powder  magazines,  were  lost,  according  to  the  claim  of 
experts,  wholly  because  of  the  poor  composition  of  the  powder  and  its 
deterioration.  Take  the  case  for  and  against  in  our  own  land  and  you 


98  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

will  find  that  in  all  inventions  concerning  arms  and  munitions,  America, 
through  the  competition  of  her  private  enterprise,  has  always  led  the  way. 
There  is  no  greater  stimulus  to  any  man  than  the  stimulus  of  necessity 
and  the  constant  grinding  greed  of  competition.  This  has  evolved  unnum- 
bered developments  and  inventions  that  would  never  have  been  brought 
forth  if  left  to  Government  employees  in  soft  berths  and  with  good  fat 
salaries.  ( Applause. ) 

Take  now  the  other  side  of  the  shield  and  wherever  there  is  Govern- 
ment control,  see  how  many  millions  of  dollars  have  been  wasted  unneces- 
sarily because  of  the  "  pork  barrel "  methods  of  all  of  our  Congresses. 

Do  you  know,  Dr.  Gladden,  that  during  the  last  fifteen  years  we  spent 
one  billion,  six  hundred  and  fifty-six  million  on  our  navy,  while  during  the 
same  period,  Germany  only  spent  one  billion,  one  hundred  and  thirty-seven 
million?  In  other  words,  though  Germany  has  a  navy  almost  double  the 
size  of  ours,  she  spent  thirty-one  per  cent,  less  money  on  her  navy  than 
we  did  on  the  smaller  equipment  which  we  possess!  Over  half  a  billion 
dollars  more  was  spent  by  America  than  Germany  to  get  only  about  half 
of  what  they  now  possess!  And  why?  Merely  because  of  what  has  been 
called  the  "  pork  barrel "  method  of  legislation  in  America,  where  every 
congressman  and  senator  insists  upon  the  chance  of  favoring  his  own  state 
or  district  in  regard  to  Government  jobs,  irrespective  of  the  price  involved 
and  the  amount  or  quality  of  material  furnished.  (Applause.) 

Some  other  interesting  figures  I  would  like  to  give  if  I  had  the  time. 
As  for  instance  in  1899,  $600,000  expended  for  an  absolutely  unnecessary 
coaling  station  in  Frenchman's  Bay,  Maine,  which  has  since  been 
dismantled  as  it  was  practically  unused.  Also  a  dock  built  at 
Portsmouth  Navy  Yard,  Kittery,  Maine,  at  an  expense  of  $1,122,000, 
that  afterwards  it  was  found  was  utterly  impossible  to  use  because  the 
channel  wasn't  deep  enough  for  any  war  vessel  to  reach  that  dock!  and 
blasting  had  to  be  done  at  an  expense  of  another  $745,000.  In  fifteen 
years,  between  1895  and  1910,  the  improvements,  machinery,  repairs  and 
maintenance  of  the  Portsmouth  Navy  Yard  amounted  to  $10,857,000, 
although  there  was  another  large  Navy  Yard  within  seventy  miles! 

At  Port  Royal,  S.  C.,  another  dock  was  built  because  a  certain 
southern  senator  wanted  it,  at  a  cost  of  $450,000,  which  proved  to  be 
absolutely  useless,  but  it  was  not  abandoned  until  $2,275,000  more  had 
been  expended.  So  I  might  keep  on  multiplying  these  instances  of  the 
"  pork  barrel "  method  and  the  absolute  waste  on  the  part  of  Government 
employees,  but  I  think  I  have  given  enough  to  disprove  the  arguments  of 
my  worthy  opponent  and  to  prove  that  rather  than  having  greater  Gov- 
ernment control  for  these  things,  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to  have  some 
of  the  private  personal  business  methods  introduced  by  which  our  great 
captains  of  industry  have  built  up  their  own  business,  in  order  that  the 
funds  of  the  nation  may  not  be  so  outrageously  expended  for  absolutely 
unnecessary  things.  (Applause.) 

Again  I  might  answer  the  arguments  concerning  the  greater  expense 
involved  by  saying  that  since  Germany  with  her  great  army  and  navy 
takes  less  than  three  per  cent,  of  the  actual  income  of  the  nation  in 
taxation  for  its  maintenance,  surely  we,  with  our  larger  income  as  the 
richest  nation  in  the  world,  can  afford  a  taxation  that  will  be  practically 
negligible  in  comparison  with  our  vast  resources.  Do  you  know,  Dr. 
Gladden,  that  we  spend  four  times  as  much  on  tobacco  in  this  nation 
than  we  do  upon  our  army  and  navy,  and  eight  times  as  much  in  alcoholic 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  99 

drinks,  while  we  could  build  three  new  superdreadnaughts  every  year  with 
the  amount  that  we  spend  on  chewing  gum  alone?  Then,  too,  let  ua 
remember  that  practically  every  cent  we  spend  upon  our  army  and  navy 
comes  back  to  the  people  in  wages  and  prices  paid  for  material,  so  that 
though  the  people  pay  it  to  the  Government  in  the  first  place,  the  Govern- 
ment immediately  pays  it  back  to  the  people  again  for  the  things  that  it 
requires.  The  great  talk  against  expense,  therefore,  is  merely  a  visionary 
bug-a-boo  raised  to  frighten  the  unthinking,  that  our  Pacifist  and  dis- 
armament friends  know  is  not  based  on  fact.  (Great  applause.) 

As  to  the  religious  question  involved  and  the  cry  that  it  is  un- 
Christian  to  fight,  I  have  but  this  to  say,  that  David  did  not  think  it 
un-Christian  when  he  cried  in  the  144th  Psalm,  "  Blessed  be  the  Lord  my 
Strength,  Who  teacheth  my  hands  to  war  and  my  fingers  to  fight."  That 
Moses  did  not  think  it  un-Christian  but  that  it  was  directed  by  the  Lord 
when  he  said  in  Ex.  15,  "  The  Lord  is  a  Man  of  War."  That  Paul  did 
not  think  it  un-Christian  when  he  said  in  the  13th  Chapter  of  Romans 
concerning  "  the  powers  that  be,"  that  is :  present  order,  authority  and 
law,  "  For  he  is  a  minister  of  God  to  thee  for  good,  but  if  thou  do  that 
which  is  evil,  be  afraid,  for  he  beareth  not  the  sword  in  vain."  That 
Christ  did  not  think  it  un-Christian  when  he  said  in  the  22nd  Chapter  oi 
Luke,  "And  he  that  hath  no  sword,  let  him  sell  his  garment  and  buy 
one."  This  latter  reference  also  is  very  definite  and  emphatic  when  we 
remember  it  was  after  Christ  had  first  sent  out  his  disciples  without 
purse  or  script  as  well  as  without  any  weapons.  Now,  therefore,  when 
he  has  come  to  the  last  night  of  his  life  and  is  about  to  send  them  out 
again  with  the  knowledge  of  that  former  experience  upon  him  and  them 
he  says  most  significantly,  "Now  he  that  hath  a  purse  let  him  take  it 
and  likewise  his  script  and  he  that  hath  no  sword  let  him  sell  his  garment 
and  buy  one."  And  they  said,  "  Lord,  behold,  here  are  two  c  words."  And 
He  said  unto  them,  "It  is  enough."  (Applause.) 

No  Pacifist,  certainly,  with  this  passage  before  him,  can  twist  it  as 
they  have  tried  to  twist  so  many  others  to  a  mere  figurative  meaning.  It 
is  absolute,  literal,  definite.  The  physical  swords  were  there.  The  dis- 
ciples showed  them,  the  Master  saw  them,  approved  of  them  and  said,  "  It 
is  enough."  Christ  realized,  as  we  all  realize,  that  there  must  come  a 
time, — after  we  have  tried,  of  course,  every  other  method, — there  naturally 
must  come  a  time  when  we  are  compelled  to  stand  for  our  principles  and 
show  our  authority,  law  and  force.  For  as  I  have  already  quoted  from 
the  Scripture,  "He  that  provideth  not  (or  doth  not  take  care)  for  his 
own  is  worse  than  an  infidel  and  hath  denied  the  faith."  ( Great  applause. ) 

The  cry  as  to  the  sacrifice  of  our  sons  and  the  bitter  bereavement  of 
wives  and  mothers  is  not  well  taken  by  the  wives  and  mothers  themselves, 
when  we  remember  that  just  yesterday  in  an  article  in  the  daily  press, 
where  a  canvass  had  been  taken  of  the  parents  having  children  in  a 
number  of  our  High  Schools  in  our  large  cities,  it  was  found  that  eighty-five 
per  cent,  of  the  mothers  were  in  favor  of  governmental  military  training, 
that  their  sons  might  be  prepared  to  guard  these  selfsame  mothers,  their 
homes  and  native  land!  It  is  still  less  well  taken  when  we  remember 
that  the  ^Woman's  Section  of  the  Belgian  Relief  Committee  that  has  had 
most  intimate  knowledge  of  the  horrors  of  war,  have  nevertheless  sent  out 
an  appeal  for  preparedness  wherein  they  say:  "Our  country  is  come  to 
the  parting  of  the  ways.  Her  isolation  is  finished  and  she  must  soberly 
choose  her  place  among  the  nations.  Her  ideals  are  essentially  those  of 


100  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

liberty  and  peace.  How  shall  we  secure  them?  The  plight  of  Belgium  and 
the  pride  of  Switzerland  are  our  answer.  He  is  safe  who  is  prepared,  he 
only  is  free  who  is  master  of  himself!  "  (Continued  applause.) 

These  wives  and  mothers  know  that  their  husbands,  sons  and  brothers 
must  fight  at  last  if  war  shall  come  and  they  prefer  to  give  them  a 
"  fighting  chance "  through  preparation  rather  than  that  they  should  be 
murdered  in  cold  blood.  They  prefer  to  have  them  trained,  drilled,  devel- 
oped for  whatever  may  come  so  that  they  shall  not  be  helpless  when 
brought  face  to  face  with  the  enemy  and  be  massacred  in  what  then 
would  be  the  savage  butchery  of  war.  (Loud  applause.) 

We  all  believe  in  Peace  just  as  much  as  our  Pacifist  friends,  and 
believe  indeed  that  it  will  come  at  last,  but  we  believe  it  will  only  come 
as  other  nations  are  impressed  with  the  strength  and  determination  of 
those  with  which  they  are  surrounded.  Such  a  show  of  strength, 
authority  and  power  will  make  all  nations  the  more  ready  to  join  in  what 
the  poet  long  has  dreamed  of :  "  The  Parliament  of  Man,  the  Federation 
of  the  World."  (Applause.) 

Such  a  federation,  of  course,  can  only  come  through  mutual  agreement. 
That  agreement  can  never  come  until  there  is  mutual  respect  for  the 
power  and  principles  of  the  other  nations  of  the  world.  With  such  recog- 
nition, respect  and  agreement,  our  far-flung  navies  will  be  merged  in  one 
as  a  police  patrol  for  all  the  seas  or  to  bear  the  growing  commerce  of 
the  world;  our  huge  opposing  armies  will  be  scattered  on  the  fields  of 
industry  instead  of  on  the  fields  of  war,  and  Peace  will  brood  on  all  our 
borders  because  order,  law,  authority  and  power  have  made  it  possible, — 
as  the  human  recognition  of  God's  law,  authority  and-  poioer  brings  ever- 
lasting Peace  to  all  our  hearts.  (Loud  and  continued  applause.) 


ANSWERS  TO 
ARGUMENTS  OF  THE  PACIFISTS 

By  HUDSON  MAXIM 

I  make  no  comments  or  criticisms  upon  any  of  the  statements  or 
arguments  in  the  letters  of  the  pacifists  printed  in  this  volume,  and 
neither  do  I  comment  upon  the  arguments, and  statements  in  the  letters  of 
the  martialists  and  advocates  of  national  defense  printed  here.  I  let  the 
letters  speak  for  themselves. 

I  have,  however,  republished  here  some  of  the  most  notable  articles 
of  the  most  prominent  pacifists,  published  and  circulated  by  them  and  by 
pacifist  organizations,  which  I  do  comment  upon. 

My  object  in  publishing  the  arguments  of  the  pacifists  in  so  full  and 
complete  a  manner  is  to  present  both  sides  of  the  question  of  national 
defense,  with  absolute  impartiality  and  fairness. 

In  justice  to  the  reader,  I  feel  that  it  is  incumbent  upon  me  to 
present  here  the  case  for  national  defense  at  such  length  and  with  such 
force  as  to  make  plain  the  truths  of  that  side  of  the  question. 

For  further  information  and  arguments  than  I  have  room  to  present 
here,  I  refer  the  reader  to  "  Defenseless  America." 

All  the  points  of  difference  of  opinion  between  the  pacifists  and  the 
martialists  or  advocates  of  national  defense — all  the  points  upon  which 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  101 

are  based  the  arguments  of  the  pacijttr  against  nation  &  1  rkfense — may 
be  summed  up  under  a  few  heads.  I  will,  therefore,  present  these  points 
under  heads,  as  nearly  as  possible  in  the  order  of  their  importance. 

HEAD  1. 
IS  SELF-DEFENSE  RIGHT  OR  WRONG? 

Taking  the  Scriptural  injunction,  "  Thou  shalt  not  kill,"  as  a  starting 
point  of  their  reasoning,  and  also  taking  literally  the  other  Scriptural 
injunction,  "  Whosoever  shall  smite  thee  on  thy  right  cheek,  turn  to  him 
the  other  also"  as  a  guide  of  conduct,  they  advocate  non-resistance  to  all 
aggressive  force.  They  believe  that  might  does  not  make  right,  and  by ' 
consequence  that  the  use  of  might  is  wrong,  even  to  accomplish  right,  or 
to  defend  the  right.  If  the  principle  of  non-resistance  is  right,  then  in  all 
human  conduct  positiveness  should  be  replaced  by  passiveness,  which,  car- 
ried to  a  logical  conclusion,  implies  inertness  for  action,  recession  for 
progression,  and  finally,  death  for  life. 

There  are  two  kinds  of  pacifists:  those  who  believe  in  absolute  non- 
resistance  regardless  of  the  provocation,  and  those  who  believe  in  some 
resistance  under  certain  extreme  provocation. 

It  is  inconceivable  to  the  normal-minded  person  how  anyone  could 
possibly  believe  in  non-resistance.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  regardless  of 
belief,  no  one  ever  did  or  ever  will,  or  ever  could  follow  such  a  foolish 
course  of  conduct.  Experience  has  proved  this  time  after  time. 

There  are  two  kinds  of  minds:  those  that  possess  sufficient  imagina- 
tion and  brea'dth  of  understanding  to  be  rational  and  logical,  and  those 
that  lack  sufficient  imagination  and  understanding  to  think  rationally  and 
logically. 

It  is  imagination,  more  than  any  other  faculty,  that  distinguishes 
the  mind  of  the  normal  man  from  the  mind  of  the  fanatic  and  of  the 
criminal.  Imagination  is  the  most  distinctively  human  faculty,  and  the 
one  which,  more  than  any  other,  distinguishes  man  from  the  brute. 

The  pacifist  who  starts  out  with  the  premise  that  "  Thou  shalt  not 
kill,"  and  that  it  is  one's  duty  to  turn  the  other  cheek,  may  really  believe 
such  conduct  would  be  actually  possible  when  put  to  the  test;  but  bring 
a  few  such  pacifists  together  and  restrict  them  to  one  another's  society 
for  a  few  days,  and  what  happened  on  the  Oscar  II  is  absolutely  always 
sure  to  happen.  The  dove  of  peace  quickly  becomes  a  turkey  buzzard  and 
the  turn-the-other-cheeker  develops  the  disposition  of  the  hyena.  There 
being  no  possible  general  agreement  in  their  ideas  and  opinions,  each  of 
them,  believing  in  the  infallibility  of  his  own  ideas  and  opinions,  is 
naturally  intolerant  of  the  opposing  opinions  and  ideas  of  every  other. 

Such  pacifists,  not  being  able  to  imagine  how  anyone  could  honestly 
differ  from  them,  immediately  conclude  that  those  who  do  differ  from 
them  are  not  honest.  The  result  is  natural  and  inevitable  that  their  wind 
of  words  should  blow  up  a  storm  of  riot  at  any  peace  conference  between 
them,  and  that  they  should  resort  to  fisticuffs,  even  if  to  nothing  worse,  to 
maul  into  one  another  the  beauties  of  the  doctrine  of  passiveness  and 
non-resistance. 

The  normal-minded  person,  on  the  other  hand,  is  endowed  with  the 
necessary  imagination  and  breadth  of  judgment  to  realize  the  truth  that 
every  person  must  of  necessity  be  a  martialist  and  ready  to  fight  in 


102  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

defense  of  wl)at  bl«s>s,higs  belong  to'him.  to  have  and  to  hold,  and  in  defense 
of  the  blessings  that  are  the  rights  of  others  to  have  and  to  hold,  for  whom 
he  feels  a  measure  of  responsibility. 

There  is  far  more  Scriptural  evidence  to  justify  this  attitude  of  mind 
than  that  of  the  extreme  pacifist. 

"The  Lord  is  a  man  of  war."     (Ex.  xv:  3.) 

"  The  Lord  of  Hosts  is  His  name."     (Is.  li:  15.) 

"  Blessed  be  the  Lord  my  strength  which  teacheth  my 
hands  to  war,  and  my  fingers  to  fight."  (Ps.  cxliv:  1.) 

"  Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  send  peac"e  on  earth :  I 
came  not  to  send  peace,  but  a  sword."  (Matt,  x:  34.) 

"And  he  that  hath  no  sword,  let  him  sell  his  garment 
and  buy  one  .  .  .  for  the  things  concerning  me  have  an 
end."  (Luke  xxii:  36,  37.) 

"  Son  of  man,  speak  to  the  children  of  thy  people,  and 
say  unto  them:  When  I  bring  the  sword  upon  a  land,  if  the 
people  of  the  land  take  a  man  of  their  coasts,  and  set  him 
for  their  watchman: 

"  If,  when  he  seeth  the  sword  come  upon  the  land,  he 
blow  the  trumpet  and  warn  the  people; 

"  Then,  whosoever  heareth  the  sound  of  the  trumpet  and 
taketh  not  warning;  if  the  sword  come  and  take  him  away, 
his  blood  shall  be  upon  his  own  head. 

"He  heard  the  sound  of  the  trumpet  and  took  not  warn- 
ing, his  blood  shall  be  upon  him.  But  he  that  taketh  warning 
shall  deliver  his  soul. 

"But  if  the  watchman  see  the  sword  come  and  blow  not 
the  trumpet,  and  the  people  be  not  warned;  if  the  sword 
come,  and  take  any  person  from  among  them,  he  is  taken  away 
in  his  iniquity;  but  his  blood  will  I  require  at  the  watchman's 
hand."  (Ezek.  xxxiii:  4,  5,  6.) 

"  For  he  is  the  minister  of  God  to  thee  for  good.  But 
if  thou  do  that  which  is  evil,  be  afraid;  for  he  beareth  not 
the  sword  in  vain;  for  he  is  the  minister  of  God,  a  revenger 
to  execute  wrath  upon  him  that  doeth  evil."  ( Rom.  xiii :  4. ) 

Preaching  on  Christ's  teachings  on  force  and  preparedness,  February 
27,  1916,  Dr.  Newell  Dwight  Hillis,  pastor  of  Plymouth  Church,  took  for 
his  text,  Luke  xi:  21: 

"  When  a  strong  man  armed  keepeth  his  palace,  his  goods 
are  in  peace;  but  when  a  stronger  than  he  shall  come  upon 
him  and  overcome  him,  he  taketh  from  him  all  his  armor 
wherein  he  trusted  and  divideth  his  spoils." 

Dr.  Hillis  said: 

"  Jesus  recognized,  in  His  teachings,  the  doctrine  of  force 
in  the  face  of  anarchy,  with  its  attendant  lawlessness.  It  is 
quite  true  that  Jesus  taught  the  doctrine  of  non-resistance 
and  of  forgiveness  to  one's  enemies.  It  is  also  true  that  men 
like  Tolstoi  have  built  up  upon  these  fragmentary  statements 
a  grotesque  concatenation  of  absurdities.  Did  the  Russian 
peasant  sow  the  seed  and  reap  the  grain,  only  to  have  a 
tramp  loot  the  storehouse  ?  Did  the  husbandman  plant  the  vine 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  103 

and  prune  the  bough,  to  find  that  another  hand  had  stolen  the 
clusters?  Did  the  merchant  manufacture  the  goods  and  put 
the  cloth  upon  the  shelf  for  sale,  only  to  have  the  thief  in 
the  night  despoil  him  of  his  treasure?  Tolstoi  straightway 
answers :  '  Do  not  resist.  And  the  moral  splendor,  soon  or 
late,  will  shame  the  thief  and  tramp.'  But  all  this  is  sheer 
anarchy.  Men  will  not  build  if  an  enemy  is  to  sit  by  the 
fire.  Men  will  not  sow  and  reap  if  their  own  children  are  to 
starve.  Tolstoi  would  do  away  with  the  lock  on  the  door,  the 
bar  on  the  bank,  the  policeman  in  the  street,  the  jail  in  the 
city.  Nothing  is  gained  by  throwing  down  the  bars  and  letting 
the  wild  beast  loose.  .  .  . 

"  Jesus  affirmed  the  doctrine  of  force  against  every  form 
of  lawlessness." 

Let  me  refer  the  reader  here  to  Chapter  II  of  "  Defenseless  America," 
especially  to  pages  42  to  55,  and  to  Dr.  Carter's  speech,  "The  Necessity 
of  Preparedness,"  printed  in  this  volume. 

The  history  of  the  ancient  world  was  one  continuous  orgy  of  fire  and 
sword,  blood  and  murder.  Banditry  was  the  only  honorable  profession, 
and  it  is  a  curious  fact  that  the  more  powerful  and  wicked  and  mur- 
derous one  of  the  old  bandit  kings  was  the  more  he  became  an  advocate  of 
non-resistance. 

All  the  red-handed  old  royal  rascals  from  Rameses  and  before,  down 
to  Attila,  Genghis  Khan,  Timur  the  Tartar,  were  staunch  advocates  of 
non-resistance,  and  when  their  advice  was  not  taken  or  their  will  was 
disobeyed  they  were  also  as  intolerant  and  unreasonable  as  the  modern 
pacifist. 

Their  method  was  to  approach  the  walled  city  of  a  neighboring  nation 
and  demand  its  surrender,  in  other  words,  to  advocate  non-resistance  on 
the  part  of  its  inhabitants.  If  the  inhabitants  of  the  besieged  city  imme- 
diately opened  its  gates,  the  bandit  king  was  sometimes  kind,  considerate 
and  generous  enough  to  spare  their  lives,  merely  taking  all  their  property 
and  selling  them  into  slavery. 

If,  on  the  contrary,  the  inhabitants  did  not  take  the  pacifist  advice 
of  the  bandit  king,  but  kept  their  gates  closed  and  manned  their  walls, 
a  regular  siege  was  instituted  by  the  beleaguerers,  and  if  and  when  the 
city  fell  what  the  old  king  bandit  did  to  the  inhabitants  to  emphasize 
the  excellence  of  his  advice  about  non-resistance  was  a  shame  to  human 
nature. 

Let  me  cite  one  example.  During  a  period  of  five  hundred  years  all 
Assyrian  kings  were  on  the  warpath.  The  historian  states: — 

"  Apparently  it  was  quite  impossible  for  an  Assyrian  king 
to  be  a  peaceful  sovereign.  His  State  lived  by  and  for  the 
army  alone,  and  if  he  did  not  give  the  army  successful  em- 
ployment he  was  quickly  murdered  to  make  way  for  some- 
one who  would  lead  the  troops  to  conquest  and  plunder." 

Let  me  introduce  to  you,  dear  reader,  one  veritable  old  jewel  as  an 
Assyrian  conqueror.  His  name  was  Ashur-natsir-pal  III, 

"...  whose  magnificent  palace  at  Kalah,  with  its 
alabaster  slabs  exquisitely  carved  in  relief,  was  excavated  by 
Layard  in  the  forties  of  last  century.  The  slabs  are  now  one 


104  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

of  the  glories  of  the  British  Museum,  where  also  the  statue 
of  the  great  conqueror  stands. 

"  We  have  the  record  of  eighteen  years  of  his  reign :  there 
is  scarcely  a  year  in  which  he  was  not  at  war;  and  this  is 
the  kind  of  war  he  made : 

" '  To  the  city  of  Tela  I  approached.  The  city  was  very 
strong;  three  fortress-walls  surrounded  it.  The  inhabitants 
trusted  to  their  strong  walls  and  their  numerous  army;  they 
did  not  come  down  or  embrace  my  feet.  With  battle  and 
slaughter  I  attacked  the  city  and  captured  it.  Three  thou- 
sand of  their  fighting  men  I  slew  with  the  sword;  their 
spoil,  their  goods,  their  oxen,  and  their  sheep  I  carried  away; 
many  captives  I  burned  with  fire. 

" '  I  captured  many  of  their  soldiers  alive ;  I  cut  off  the 
hands  and  feet  of  some ;  of  others  I  cut  off  the  noses,  the  ears, 
and  the  fingers;  I  put  out  the  eyes  of  many  soldiers.  I 
built  up  a  pyramid  of  the  living  and  a  pyramid  of  heads.  On 
high  I  hung  up  their  heads  on  trees  in  the  neighborhood  of 
their  city.  Their  young  men  and  their  maidens  I  burned  with 
fire.  The  city  I  overthrew,  dug  it  up,  and  burned  it  with 
fire;  I  annihilated  it.'" 

What  a  pal  must  have  been  this  old  Ashur-natsir-pal. 

Any  philosophy  opposed  to  natural  law  may  be  known  to  be  a  false 
philosophy,  and  any  rule  of  conduct  opposed  to  all  human  experience  may 
be  known  to  be  opposed  to  natural  law,  for  all  animal  life  and  experience 
must  of  necessity  conform  to  natural  law. 

In  order  to  put  into  practice  the  doctrine  of  non-resistance  it  would 
be  necessary  to  reverse  the  natural  law  that  secures  the  survival  of  the 
fittest. 

Life  is  a  constant  struggle  for  existence.  It  is  a  struggle  against 
opposing  forces;  and  all  growth,  development,  health  and  progress  depend 
entirely  upon  successful  resistance  to  environing  forces  which  tend  to 
consume  us,  but  which,  through  our  powers  of  resistance,  we  are  enabled 
to  use  formatively  to  develop  and  strengthen  us.  The  martialist,  there- 
fore, obeys  the  law  of  life,  while  the  pacifist,  without  knowing  or  under- 
standing the  nature  of  his  own  teaching,  advocates  living  by  the  law  of 
death.  If  it  be  wrong  to  kill,  it  is  also  wrong  to  be  killed.  The  Scriptural 
injunction  "  Thou  shalt  not  kill "  necessarily  implies — thou  shalt  not  be 
killed,  and  that  one  should  take  the  necessary  measures  of  defense  to 
prevent  being  killed. 

When  one  person  is  in  danger  of  being  killed  by  another,  and  knows 
that  he  is  in  such  danger  and  takes  no  measures  for  self-defense,  he 
becomes  an  accessory  to  the  murder. 

The  truth  must  be  recognized  that  good  as  well  as  evil  is  a  force. 
We  often  speak  of  a  person  or  thing  being  a  power  for  good. 

The  Bible  is  filled  with  metaphors  illustrative  of  the  truth  that  good 
5s  in  constant  warfare  with  evil,  righteousness  with  iniquity,  angels  with 
the  Devil.  Milton's  "  Paradise  Lost "  and  Bunyan's  "  Pilgrim's  Progress  " 
are  two  wonderful  metaphors  or  allegories  of  the  warfare  of  good  against 
evil. 

We  also  have  in  our  own  time  that  marvelous  metaphor  of  good 
warfare  against  evil — the  Salvation  Army. 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  105 

HEAD  2 
QUESTION  OF  SUBSTITUTION  OF  LAW  FOR  WAR 

The  pacifists  advocate  the  substitution  of  international  law  for  war, 
as  they  put  it,  and  the  settlement  of  international  disputes  by  juris- 
prudential  procedure.  They  fail  absolutely  to  understand  the  fact  that 
law  being  a  representative  of  force,  any  law  without  force  behind  it 
would  not  be  true  law,  but  would  be  merely  advice. 

The  extreme  pacifists  imagine  that  they  will  be  able  to  do  away  with 
force  and  compel  obedience  to  international  law  by  the  substitution  of 
love  and  persuasion  for  force. 

Law  without  force  behind  it  is  like  a  paper  dollar  without  gold 
behind  it. 

I  refer  the  reader  to  Chapter  II  of  "  Defenseless  America." 

HEAD  3 
OLD  MARS  BOTH  A  DR.  JEKYLL  AND  A  MR.  HYDE 

The  pacifists  believe  that  by  proving  war  to  be  wrong,  they  prove  all 
military  preparations  to  be  essentially  wrong.  They  draw  lurid  pictures 
of  the  horrors  of  war,  imagining  that  they  thereby  prove  all  wars  to  be 
wrong.  They  fail  to  perceive  the  truth  that  there  are  both  good  wars  and 
bad  wars. 

The  fact  is  old  Mars  has  a  dual  personality.  He  is  both  a  Dr.  Jekyll 
and  a  Mr.  Hyde.  George  Washington,  Abraham  Lincoln  and  General  Grant 
were  soldiers  who  fought  in  the  cause  of  the  good  Mars.  When  one  fights 
in  defense  of  his  home  and  country,  when  one  fights  to  free  slaves,  when 
one  fights  against  tyranny,  aggression  and  oppression — in  short,  when  one 
fights  for  freedom,  he  is  fighting  a  good  war.  On  the  other  hand,  those 
who  wage  wars  of  aggression  and  oppression — wars  whose  objects  are  to 
plunder  and  enslave — are  fighting  bad  wars;  in  short,  all  wars  against 
aggression  and  for  freedom  are  good  wars,  while  all  wars  of  aggress?on 
and  against  freedom  are  bad  wars. 

It  is  the  supreme  of  patriotism  and  the  worthiest  of  sacrifice  to  fight 
for  and  die  for  one's  country  in  a  war  against  aggression,  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  it  is  the  supreme  of  the  ignoble  and  the  infamous  to  fight 
and  die  in  a  war  of  aggression  and  oppression,  in  a  war  of  banditry.  The 
noblest  of  all  professions  is  the  profession  of  the  soldier  fighting  in  the 
cause  of  righteousness,  and  the  most  dishonorable  of  all  professions  is  that 
of  the  soldier  of  unrighteousness,  the  soldier  of  banditry. 

HEAD  4 
RIVALRY  OF  PREPAREDNESS  AMONG  NATIONS 

The  pacifists  hold  that  preparation  by  one  country  for  national  defense 
leads  other  countries  to  prepare  likewise.  They  claim  that  such  prepara- 
tion is  not  a  safeguard  against  war,  but  an  enticement  to  war;  that  the 
very  act  of  preparing  has  in  it  the  nature  of  a  threat,  and  constitutes  a 
menace;  furthermore,  that  preparation  by  one  nation  starts  a  rivalry 
between  all  the  nations,  and  that  the  more  one  nation  prepares,  the  more 


106  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

all  the  others  are  sure  to  prepare,  thereby  piling  upon  the  taxpayers 
enormous  expense,  without  any  end  to  it. 

One  of  the  prettiest  bits  of  sophistry  under  this  head  is  that  of  Mr. 
Bryan,  in  his  speech,  "  The  War  in  Europe,"  printed  in  this  volume,  where 
he  represents  three  neighbors  living  around  a  lake  engaging  in  a  rivalry 
of  battleship  construction  to  defend  themselves  against  one  another. 

Mr.  Bryan  failed  to  perceive  the  truth  that  three  families  so  situated, 
under  sucii  primitive  and  lawless  conditions  as  he  assumes,  would  of 
necessity  adopt  exactly  those  measures  that  mankind  has  always  adopted 
under  similar  circumstances. 

Let  us  go  back  a  little  in  human  history  to.  the  time  when  there  were 
three  families  of  cave  men  living  around  a  lake,  and  see  what  those  cave 
men  did  do.  When  one  family  of  the  cave  men  made  hatchets  and  spear- 
heads of  flint  and  bone,  the  other  families  also  had  to  make  them  for 
self-defense;  and  when  one  family  invented  the  bow  and  arrow,  and  was 
able  to  kill  a  neighbor  at  a  distance  beyond  the  throw  of  the  javelin,  the 
bow  and  arrow  was  necessarily  adopted  by  the  other  two  families;  and 
when  one  family,  with  fire  and  flint  hollowed  a  log,  and  made  a  boat  or 
constructed  a  raft  of  logs,  the  other  families  had  to  have  their  raft  and 
their  boat;  and  when  they  came  out  of  their  caverns  and  built  their  houses 
on  the  shore  of  the  lake,  and  the  members  of  one  family  or  community 
surrounded  their  houses  by  a  common  wall,  the  other  families  around  the 
lake  did  likewise,  and,  still  later,  when  bronze  replaced  flint,  each  family 
had  to  have  bronze  weapons,  and  when  steel  replaced  bronze  they  had  to 
have  weapons  of  steel;  and,  finally,  with  the  advent  of  firearms  and  gun- 
Boats,  each  family  or  community  or  city  or  nation  had  to  have  its  firearms 
and  its  gunboats.  In  short,  exactly  in  pace  and  in  keeping  with  their 
intellectual  development  and  their  powers  of  invention,  have  the  people 
of  the  world  been  compelled  by  necessity  to  adopt  the  best  available  means 
of  defense. 

This  rivalry  has  not  been  a  bad  thing.  It  has  been  a  good  thing. 
Nothing  could  so  stimulate  the  mind  of  man  to  invention  and  discovery 
as  the  imperative  and  ever-present  necessity  of  providing  himself  weapons 
for  the  defense  of  his  home  and  property  against  those  who  always  stood 
ready  to  take  them  from  him  and  to  enslave  him  if  he  did  not  defend  them ; 
and  always  the  measure  of  such  preparation  for  defense  has  been  propor- 
tionate to  what  at  the  time  appeared  to  be  the  need  for  it.  When  the  need 
was  greater,  there  was  always  greater  preparation,  and  when  the  need  was 
less,  there  was  less  precaution  and  less  preparation;  and  always  also  the 
necessity  for  preparation  has  been  exactly  proportionate  to  the  prospective 
dividends  that  might  be  declared  after  deducting  the  cost  of  conquest. 

No  nation  has  ever  been  safe  except  when  it  has  been  so  well  defended 
as  to  make  it  evident  that  the  cost  of  conquest  would  exceed  the  plunder, 
and  whenever  it  has  been  evident  that  the  cost  of  conquest  would  exceed  the 
plunder,  any  nation  was  safe. 

All  families,  all  communities,  all  nations,  have  grown  up  from  the 
simple  beginning  of  the  cave-man  family. 

When  the  three  cave-men  families  became  three  nations,  living  on 
opposite  shores  of  a  lake  or  on  opposite  sides  of  a  river  or  a  mountain 
chain,  or  on  the  opposite  sides  of  a  thicket  or  jungle,  they  were  rivals, 
and  were  enemies  whenever  advantage  or  necessity  dictated  that  they 
should  be  enemies,  and  when  they  met  and  fought  with  their  primitive 
weapons  the  slaughter  was  immense,  and  the  slaughter  continued  to  in- 
crease with  improvements  in  weapons  of  war  until  the  maximum  was 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  107 

reached  with  the  Roman  short  sword.  Since  that  time,  especially  since 
the  advent  of  firearms,  which  compelled  armies  to  line  up  farther  apart 
and  to  spread  over  wider  areas,  fewer  and  fewer  have  been  killed  with 
every  improvement  in  the  length  of  range  and  speed  of  fire  of  guns. 

Consequently,  when  the  three  families  in  Mr.  Bryan's  simile  of  three 
nations  arrived  at  the  point  when  they  built  rival  battleships,  they  were 
pitting  dollars  against  dollars,  rather  than  pitting  their  lives  against  one 
another,  as  they  used  to  do  in  the  old  days  before  there  were  battleships. 

The  reader  is  referred  to  Chapter  IV  of  "Defenseless  America"  for 
further  matter  upon  this  subject. 

The  question  is  often  raised  by  the  pacifists,  where  does  adequate 
preparedness  end?  If  we  arm,  then  other  nations  will  arm  all  the  more, 
and  then  we  shall  be  required  to  take  on  a  still  larger  burden  to  hold  our 
position  with  respect  to  the  other  nations,  and  there  will  never  be  an 
end  to  it. 

When  we  look  at  this  sophistry  of  the  pacifists,  we  are  inclined  to 
think  that  there  is  some  reason  in  their  argument,  but  on  second  thought 
we  see  that  their  contention  is  very  illogical.  There  is  a  definite  limit  to 
the  amount  any  nation  should  prepare  in  order  to  make  itself  perfectly 
safe. 

Nations  do  not  go  into  the  business  of  war  except  for  profit,  any 
more  than  business  men  enter  business  without  prospective  profit.  No 
man  will  go  into  a  business  knowing  beforehand  that  he  is  going  to  lose 
money  in  the  enterprise.  Similarly,  no  nation  will  go  to  war  with  another 
nation  unless  the  prospective  plunder  is  likely  greatly  to  exceed  the  cost 
of  plundering. 

One  of  the  best  illustrations  of  the  truth  that  adequacy  of  preparedness 
means  preparedness  up  to  the  point  where  the  plunder  does  not  warrant 
the  expense  of  plundering,  is  afforded  by  the  experience  of  the  Swiss  just 
after  the  Franco-Prussian  War. 

Bismarck,  after  that  war,  looked  with  covetous  eyes  upon  the  Swiss 
fastnesses,  and  he  straightway  planned  to  take  possession  of  Switzerland 
and  bring  it  into  the  German  Empire.  But  the  Swiss  at  that  time  had 
a  hundred  thousand  of  the  best-armed,  best-trained  soldiers  in  the  world, 
and  a  goodly  number  besides  not  quite  up  to  that  standard.  They  marched 
this  hundred  thousand  men  down  to  the  frontier,  and  Bismarck  was  con- 
vinced that  the  cost  of  taking  Switzerland  would  be  more  than  it  would 
be  worth. 

A  rabbit  in  the  wood  that  should  decide  to  substitute  the  quills  of 
the  porcupine  for  its  protection  in  place  of  high  speed  to  escape  its 
enemies,  would  have  to  be  armed  with  quills  long  enough,  numerous 
enough  and  sharp  enough  to  make  the  cost  of  getting  at  its  flesh  more 
than  its  flesh  would  be  worth,  even  to  its  hungriest  and  most  fiercely- 
fanged  enemies. 

Similarly,  it  is  not  the  relative  size  of  the  fleet  of  Germany,  or  of 
any  other  nation,  that  should  determine  the  size  of  our  fleet,  for  always 
there  is  a  possibility  that  the  fleets  of  other  nations  may  double  up  against 
us.  What  we  need,  and  all  we  need,  is  a  fleet  big  enough,  together  with 
an  army  big  enough,  to  make  the  cost  of  whipping  us  more  than  the 
plunder  would  be  worth — in  short,  to  make  the  cost  of  getting  at  ear 
flesh  more  than  the  profit  in  getting  at  our  flesh  would  be  worth. 

Here  lies  the  answer  to  the  argument  of  the  pacifists  that  if  we 
were  to  prepare  sufficiently  to  defead  ourselves  against  the  great  military 


108  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

nations  of  the  world,  we  should  also  become  a  military  despotism — we 
should  become  aggressors  and  attack  and  plunder  other  nations. 

We  surely  should  be  dominated  by  our  myriad-year-old  human  nature, 
and  should  do  some  plundering  of  the  weaker  nations  who  had  not  made 
hedgehogs  of  themselves  by  so  adequately  preparing  against  war  as  to 
make  the  cost  of  getting  at  their  meat  through  their  quills  more  than  it 
would  be  worth. 

This  has  always  been  the  way  of  the  world.  During  all  history 
warlike  nations  have  imposed  upon  unwarlike  nations.  Poor  old  China 
had  to  shave  its  head  and  wear  a  pigtail  for  a  thousand  years. 

The  time  has  come  for  us  to  choose  whether  or  not  we  shall  submit 
to  degradation  by  other  nations  or  arm  ourselves  and  trust  ourselves  not 
to  abuse  our  power.  Of  the  two  evils  it  strikes  me  that  the  lesser  evil 
would  be  to  abuse  the  other  fellow  rather  than  to  put  ourselves  in  a 
position  to  let  him  abuse  us. 

The  present  war  has  proved  that  there  are  still  predatory  nations  in 
the  world;  that  these  predatory  nations  are  better  armed  than  we  are; 
that  they  do  not  respect  either  treaties  or  the  rights  of  other  nations, 
but  are  actuated  solely  by  what  they  consider  advantageous  to  themselves. 

If  we  remain  unarmed  our  undefended  wealth  will  be  an  enticement 
to  the  predatory  powers.  Consequently,  it  is  up  to  us  now  to  decide 
whether  or  not  we  can  trust  ourselves  to  carry  arms  without  becoming 
ourselves  predatory,  or  whether  we  shall  take  the  risk  of  becoming  a 
predatory  nation  rather  than  take  the  risk  of  being  victimized  by  preda- 
tory nations. 

If  it  be  actually  true  that  if  we  were  adequately  armed  for  national 
defense  we  should  be  tempted  to  use  our  arms  against  other  nations  not 
so  well  prepared  as  we,  this  is  the  strongest  possible  evidence  that  if  we 
do  not  prepare,  then  those  nations  that  are  now  better  armed  than  we, 
will  attack  us  if  we  do  not  prepare  for  defense. 


HEAD  5 
MERCIFUL  WEAPONS  OF  WAR 

The  pacifists  hold  that  whereas  it  is  wrong  to  kill,  it  is  likewise 
wrong  to  invent  or  make  munitions  of  war  intended  to  kill;  also  that 
the  more  deadly  and  destructive  a  weapon  of  war  is,  so  much  greater 
is  the  wrong  in  making  it. 

The  pacifists  believe  also  that  the  more  deadly  and  destructive  is  an 
implement  of  war,  the  larger  the  number  of  persons  that  may  be  killed 
by  it,  while  the  exact  opposite  is  the  truth. 

The  quick-firing  gun  is  the  greatest  life-saving  instrument  ever  in- 
vented, because  with  every  improvement  in  the  range  and  rapidity  of  fire 
of  guns,  armies  fight  just  so  much  farther  apart  as  may  be  necessary  to 
balance  its  added  effectiveness. 

Before  the  introduction  of  firearms,  fighting  was  done  at  short  range, 
and  was  correspondingly  more  deadly.  Many  times  as  many  men,  for 
the  numbers  engaged,  were  killed  in  wars  with  spears,  battleaxes  and 
the  short  sword  as  are  now  killed  in  battle  with  all  our  modern  enginery 
of  death  and  destruction.  With  the  introduction  of  improved  machinery 
of  war,  fighting  is  necessarily  done  more  by  machinery  and  less  by  hand, 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  109 

so  that  in  battle  life-destroying  machinery  becomes  labor-saving  machinery, 
and  consequently  life-saving  machinery. 

History  proves  that  the  supreme  necessity  of  a  nation  has  always  been, 
interpreted  by  that  nation  as  its  supreme  duty,  and  that  a  nation  is  sure 
to  take  advantage  of  whatever  appears  to  be  of  supreme  advantage  to  it, 
and  that  if  it  cannot  get  it  without  fighting  for  it,  it  is  sure  to  fight  for  it. 

Whatever  may  be  the  ethical  standards  of  a  people,  and  however  much 
their  ideals  may  be  opposed  to  the  doctrine  of  might  makes  right,  they 
always  in  their  conduct  put  the  doctrine  of  might  makes  right  into 
practice.  They  always  exercise  might  to  accomplish  what  they  believe  to 
be  right,  and  they  conceive  to  be  right  always  what  is  best  for  themselves. 
They  justify  themselves  on  the  ground  that  their  very  possession  of  the 
power  to  accomplish  their  designs  is  prima  facie  evidence  that  they  are 
the  special  favorites  of  Providence,  and  the  fittest  to  survive,  and  conse- 
quently warranted  in  the  exercise  of  force  to  get  what  they  want  at 
whatever  cost  or  loss  it  may  be  to  others,  and  regardless  of  whatever 
sacrifice  of  life  may  be  necessary  to  its  accomplishment,  especially  when 
the  loss  of  life  is  mainly  on  the  part  of  the  parties  plundered. 

Therefore,  taking  the  human  fighting  instinct  as  a  constant  or  unvary- 
ing propensity  or  characteristic,  nations  are  sure  to  fight  when  the  con- 
ditions above  referred  to  favor  a  fight,  and  they  will  fight  with  whatever 
weapons  they  have,  and  the  simpler  and  more  primitive  the  weapons  are, 
the  greater  the  slaughter.  Therefore,  if  all  the  nations  of  the  world  were 
to  disarm  and  actually  to  forge  their  swords  into  plowshares,  and  their 
spears  into  pruning  hooks,  and  to  scrap  all  their  guns  and  other  imple- 
ments of  war,  that  very  act  would  arm  them  with  far  more  deadly 
weapons  than  they  now  possess.  The  pruning  hook  would  be  a  far  more 
deadly  weapon  than  the  quick-firing  gun,  to  say  nothing  of  the  farmers'  ax 
and  pitchfork. 

Had  the  vast  armies  of  Europe  in  the  present  war  been  armed  with 
only  agricultural  implements,  the  actual  slaughter  would  have  been  ten 
times  as  great  for  the  time  and  numbers  engaged.  Therefore,  disarma- 
ment would  not  be  a  measure  in  the  interest  of  saving  life — it  would  be 
a  measure  that  would,  in  the  event  of  war,  result  in  enormously  increased 
sacrifice  of  life. 

The  reader  is  referred,  for  further  information  under  this  head,  to 
"Defenseless  America,"  Chapter  IV. 

HEAD  6 
PREPAREDNESS  AN  INSURANCE  AGAINST  WAR 

The  pacifists  hold  that  the  munition  makers  are  largely  to  blame  tor 
war,  because  they  work  for  preparedness  or  national  defense,  in  order  to 
sell  more  munitions  of  war.  Therefore,  they  hold  that  if  the  profit  for 
the  munition  makers  were  taken  out  of  war,  that  is  to  say,  if  they  were 
prevented  from  making  profits  from  war,  there  would  as  a  result  be  no 
preparedness  and  no  wars. 

They  do  not  observe  the  point  that  peace,  according  to  their  reasonings, 
could  not  be  made  permanent,  even  with  the  ruse  of  turning  the  other 
cheek  and  the  obligation  of  brotherly  love,  unless  there  should  be  an  inter- 
national agreement  among  munition  makers,  because  if  the  munition 
makers  of  one  country  continued  to  advocate  preparedness  and  thereby 


110  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

to  promote  war,  they  would  promote  war  all  the  more  the  easier  it  could 
be  precipitated,  and  the  less  that  other  nations  were  prepared  the  easier 
it  would  be  for  them  to  make  war,  and  consequently  to  make  profits. 

HEAD  7 
REGARDING  THE  REAL  DANGER  OF  WAR 

Before  the  great  European  War  came,  the  pacifists  held  that  the 
last  great  war  of  the  world  had  been  fought;  that,  owing  to  the  ponderous 
preparedness  of  the  nations  and  the  evident  expense  of  a  war,  none  of  them 
would  dare  to  precipitate  war — that  they  would  see  beforehand  that  the 
expense  would  bankrupt  them  and  the  slaughter  would  be  so  frightful  as 
to  depopulate  them. 

Nevertheless,  the  great  war  came,  and  the  expense,  though  vast,  has 
not  bankrupted  the  nations — in  fact,  the  annual  outlay  has  not  been  five 
per  cent,  of  the  wealth  of  the  warring  powers,  while  the  annual  death  rate 
has  not  by  any  means  equalled  the  birth  rate. 

Now  that  the  war  has  actually  come,  the  pacifists,  in  accounting  for 
it,  say  that  it  was  brought  on  as  a  result  of  the  ponderous  preparedness  of 
the  nations  for  war,  exactly  the  same  reasons  that  they  used  before  the 
war  to  prove  that  this  war  could  not  come. 

It  is  not  at  all  true  that  the  European  powers  were  ponderously  pre- 
pared. Germany  and  Austria  were  the  only  countries  that  were  prepared. 
France  was  only  partially  prepared;  both  Russia  and  England  were  piti- 
fully unprepared. 

Under  this  head,  the  reader  is  referred  to  "Defenseless  America/* 
Chapter  I. 

HEAD  8 

MUNITION  MAKERS  AND  ARMY  AND  NAVY  OFFICERS  AS  WAR 

BREEDERS 

Under  this  head,  the  reader  is  referred  for  particulars  to  Chapter  XI 
of  "  Defenseless  America." 

HEAD  9 
THE  SIMILE  OF  THE  DUELIST 

A  very  favorite  sophistical  simile  used  by  the  pacifists  is  that  until 
recent  years  dueling  was  a  customary  method  of  settling  individual  differ- 
ences— that  when  some  dishonorable  fellow  skillful  in  the  use  of  sword 
or  gun  wanted  to  get  square  with  some  honorable  opponent  who  had 
aspersed  the  rascal's  honor,  the  rascal  would  send  the  honorable  man  a 
challenge,  which  he  was  obliged  to  accept  or  become  the  laughing-stock 
and  ridicule  of  and  a  thing  to  be  shunned  by  all  his  fellow  creatures. 

The  pacifists  tell  us  that  when  one  nation  arms  to  defend  itself  for 
defense  against  another  nation,  it  is  a  ease  exactly  parallel  with  the 
duelist  who  used  to  carry  a  gun  to  defend  his  honor,  and  that  whereas 
dueling  has  become  unpopular  and  a  discarded  thing,  national  defense 
should  also  become  unpopular  and  be  discarded. 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  111 

That  simile  is  very  convincing  when  one  accepts  it  as  an  argument 
without  question,  but  it  does  not  stand  investigation.  The  case  of  the 
armed  nation  is  not  at  all  similar  to  that  of  the  armed  duelist.  But  let 
me  give  a  simile  which  will  actually  illustrate  the  position  of  two  nations 
with  respect  to  their  measures  of  defense,  under  the  following  head. 

HEAD  10 
NEED  OF  POLICE 

Salus  popuU  suprema  lex.  (The  safety  of  the  people  is  the  supreme 
law.) 

"The  police  power  is  an  attribute  of  sovereignty  and 
exists  without  any  reservation  in  the  constitution,  being 
founded  upon  the  duty  of  the  state  to  protect  its  citizens, 
and  provide  for  the  safety  and  good  order  of  society.  It 
corresponds  to  the  right  of  self-preservation  in  the  individual, 
and  is  an  essential  element  in  all  orderly  government,  because 
necessary  to  the  proper  maintenance  of  the  government  and  the 
general  welfare  of  the  community.  Upon  it  depend  the  security 
of  social  order,  the  life  and  health  of  the  citizen,  the  comfort 
of  existence  in  a  thickly  populated  community,  the  enjoyment 
of  private  and  social  life,  and  the  beneficial  use  of  property, 
and  it  has  been  said  to  be  the  very  foundation  upon  which 
our  social  system  rests."  ("A.  and  E.  Ency.  of  Law.") 

Much  has  been  said  in  recent  years  upon  the  subject  of  an  interna- 
tional police  force — that  is  to  say,  a  union  of  the  armed  forces  of  the 
nations  for  compulsory  international  good  behavior — an  armed  force  on 
a  large  scale  identical  in  nature  with  what  the  municipal  police  force  is 
on  a  small  scale. 

I  do  not  know  for  certain  who  was  the  first  to  recommend  an  interna- 
tional armed  police  force.  At  any  rate,  I  never  heard  of  it  having  been 
suggested  prior  to  its  recommendation  by  me  about  twenty-five  years  ago. 
or  even  prior  to  its  recommendation  by  me  at  a  Peace  Congress  Banquet 
of  the  Economic  Club  of  Boston  on  the  20th  day  of  April,  1907. 

It  is  a  scientific  truism  that  multiplying  the  number  of  a  thing  does 
not  alter  the  nature  of  the  thing.  An  apple  is  an  apple,  whether  one 
apple  or  a  million  are  under  consideration,  and  the  same  holds  true  in 
all  things,  from  mustard  seed  to  man.  The  same  laws  govern  a  million 
mustard  seeds  that  govern  one  mustard  seed,  and  the  same  laws  are 
applicable  to  a  million  families  of  men  as  are  applicable  to  one  family  of 
men. 

A  community  is  but  a  larger  family,  a  state  is  but  a  larger  com- 
munity, and  any  number  of  states  is  but  a  larger  state.  The  state  or 
nation  itself  is  but  a  larger  family;  and  the  same  natural  laws  of 
behavior  and  self-preservation  hold  true  with  any  number  of  individuals 
and  with  any  number  of  families  as  with  a  single  individual  or  a  single 
family,  and  the  same  natural  laws  apply  to  a  complex  society  as  to  a 
simple  form  of  society. 

The  father  of  the  family  and  his  strong  boys  were  the  police  force 
that  guarded  the  family  of  the  cave  man,  and  the  cave  man  community 


112  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

was  policed  by  a  union  of  the  male  heads  of  families — by  a  union  of  the 
family  guardians. 

Later,  when  the  cave  man  moved  from  the  hill  cavern  down  into  the 
¥alley,  and  settled  on  the  banks  of  lakes  and  rivers,  and  protected  his 
community  with  a  wall,  the  army  that  he  raised  to  defend  his  city  was 
a  police  force  that  protected  it  both  from  without  and  from  within. 

The  first  army  was  raised  purely  for  protective  purposes,  but  when 
the  police  force  of  one  city  or  community  became  much  stronger  than  that 
of  a  neighboring  city  or  community,  the  greater  power  was  often  abused, 
and  the  stronger  city  plundered  the  weaker  city  and  enslaved  its  inhab- 
itants. This  was  an  abuse  of  police  power. 

At  the  present  time  an  army  and  a  navy  of  a  people  like  that  of  the 
United  States  is  purely  a  police  force,  and  has  no  other  function  than 
as  a  police  force.  The  people  of  this  country  have  no  desire  for  foreign 
aggression.  There  could  be  no  profit  to  this  country  from  foreign  ag- 
gression, and  that  is  the  strongest  reason  in  the  world  based  upon  the 
experiential  knowledge  of  all  history  for  the  belief  that  the  people  of  this 
<x>untry  would  not  abuse  their  power  if  armed  sufficiently  for  self-defense. 

There  is  absolutely  no  difference,  except  in  size,  between  an  invasion 
of  a  country  by  a  foreign  foe  and  the  invasion  of  a  private  home  by  a  band 
of  thieves. 

We  are  guarded  in  our  cities  from  the  attack  of  thieves  by  our  police. 
An  army  and  a  navy  purely  to  prevent  attacks  of  a  foreign  enemy  is  in 
every  sense  a  police  force.  The  conquest  of  a  home  by  thieves  and  the 
slaying  of  the  members  of  a  family  who  die  in  defense  of  their  home  is 
merely  a  war  of  invasion  on  a  small  scale,  and  a  war  of  invasion  of  a 
nation  is  merely  a  home  invasion  by  thieves  and  plunderers  on  a  large 
scale.  It  simply  means  that  a  larger  number  of  homes  suffer  and  that 
the  number  of  thieves  and  plunderers  is  larger.  There  is  absolutely  no 
difference  whatever  in  the  nature  or  the  ethics  of  the  two  transactions. 
Consequently,  we  have  the  same  reason  to  support  our  arguments  for 
preparedness  against  invasion  of  this  country  by  a  foreign  foe  as  for  a 
police  force  for  the  defense  of  our  homes  against  thieves  and  burglars. 

A  truth  that  has  been  established  by  the  experience  of  all  history  may 
safely  be  relied  on,  and  it  is  a  truth  so  established  that  the  treatment  of 
undefended  nations  by  warlike  nations  has  always  been  as  inconsiderate, 
unethical  and  merciless  as  the  treatment  of  a  family  by  a  gang  of  thieves. 
When  a  nation  is  rich  and  unprotected,  other  nations  that  have  guns  and 
the  equipment  of  men  and  munitions  for  its  conquest  are  just  as  likely  to 
invade  and  plunder  the  weak  nation  as  a  gang  of  well-armed  thieves 
would  be  likely  to  invade  and  rob  an  unprotected  rich  family  in  any  city 
in  the  country,  if  that  city  had  no  police  force,  and  thieves  and  cutthroats 
were  permitted  to  go  about  unarrested  and  unmolested. 

Those  pacifists  who  recommend  that  this  country  go  unprepared 
should  first  try  the  experiment  on  a  small  scale.  Let  some  city  in  the 
Union,  the  majority  of  whose  voters  are  pacifists,  disband  their  police 
force  and  see  how  the  thing  will  work  on  a  small  scale  before  trying  it  on 
a  large  scale  with  the  entire  country. 

Let  us  suppose,  for  example,  that  a  city  like  Chicago,  St.  Louis, 
Cincinnati,  Philadelphia,  New  York,  Boston,  should  disband  its  police 
force,  and  depend  for  its  security  entirely  upon  the  innate  spirit  of  good 
fellowship  and  brotherly  love  of  its  citizens.  How  would  it  work  out? 
Chaos  would  reign  in  a  day!  Thieves,  cutthroats  and  burglars  would 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  113 

immediately  rise  up  in  large  numbers.  No  life  would  be  safe  and  no  home 
secure  for  a  moment.  No  property  would  be  safe  anywhere.  Stores  would 
be  broken  into  indiscriminately  and  plundered. 

We  are  so  dependent  upon  our  police  force  for  our  security  that  we 
have  come  to  look  upon  it  as  an  absolute  indispensable  adjunct  of  every 
society  where  large  numbers  of  people  are  congregated.  No  one  would  for 
a  moment  think  of  doing  away  with  our  policemen.  Thus,  we  are  able 
to  see  in  a  small  and  simple  way  why  we  should  defend  the  country  in 
a  larger  way.  Consequently,  it  is  most  evident  that  we  should  have  a  large 
police  force  to  defend  the  nation  just  as  we  have  a  small  police  force  to 
defend  the  persons  and  property  of  the  inhabitants  of  our  cities. 

HEAD  11 

OUR  COUNTRY'S  DANGER.     OUR  ISOLATION  NO  LONGER  A 
PROTECTION 

The  pacifists  claim  that  all  the  other  nations  are  friendly  to  us. 

"No  nation  has  any  thought  of  waging  war  against  us. 
.  .  .  No  nation  is  challenging  us;  no  nation  is  trying  to 
draw  us  into  war  with  itself." — William  Jennings  Bryan. 

"We  are  connected  so  intimately  by  ties  of  blood  and 
sympathy  with  all  the  nations  of  the  Old  World  that  public 
opinion  would  make  a  war  with  any  of  the  great  powers  prac- 
tically impossible." — Memorial  to  Members  of  Senate  and 
House  from  Society  of  Friends  of  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey, 
Delaware  and  parts  of  Maryland. 

"Let  the  President  and  others  who  are  preaching  this 
doctrine  of  fear  point  out  the  enemy.  .  .  ." — Henry  Ford. 

"Who  is  this  invisible,  this  unknown,  this  unheralded 
enemy  against  whose  attack  we  are  to  prepare  ourselves  at 
such  great  expense?" — Nicholas  Murray  Butler. 

When  the  evidence  of  a  thing  is  not  what  a  pacifist  thinks  evidence 
ought  to  be,  he  blames  the  evidence  and  does  not  allow  it  to  change  his 
belief.  Experience  is  man's  surest  guide.  The  history  of  all  times  past 
absolutely  proves  that  just  in  proportion  as  a  nation  is  rich  and  defenseless 
in  comparison  with  surrounding  nations,  so  are  the  chances  that  it  will 
be  warred  upon  and  plundered  by  the  surrounding  nations. 

In  support  of  their  arguments,  the  pacifists  point  out  the  fact  that 
the  United  States  during  many  years  has  been  both  wealthy  and  weak 
from  a  military  point  of  view,  and  has  thus  far  escaped  being  plundered 
or  seriously  attacked. 

The  undefended  Canadian  boundary  line  is  pointed  out  as  evidence  that 
whereas  fortifications  have  not  been  required  to  defend  that  line,  no  forti- 
fications are  required  to  defend  any  boundary  line. 

The  Canadian  boundary  line  has  been  used  to  the  limit  to  carry  con- 
riction  to  the  minds  of  the  unthinking  and  unwary.  The  reasons  we  have 
not  needed  to  defend  our  Canadian  boundary  line  are  that  until  compara- 


114  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

tively  recent  times  the  Atlantic  Ocean  was  a  fairly  effective  barrier  against 
invasion;  that  England  has  been  too  busy  with  her  European  neighbors  to 
permit  her  to  turn  against  us.  She  could  not  come  after  us  because  of 
the  danger  of  being  immediately  attacked  from  her  rear  should  she  do  so. 
There  is  also  another  reason:  England  did  not  need  any  of  our  territory. 
Besides,  we  were  her  watch  dogs,  bound  to  guard  her  interests  in  the 
Western  Hemisphere,  in  order  to  defend  our  Monroe  Doctrine.  Our  Monroe 
Doctrine  has  made  us  a  constant  unwitting  ally  of  Great  Britain,  and 
heretofore  England  has  needed  us  as  an  ally. 

But  now  the  ocean  has  become  a  mere  ferry  across  which  armies  with 
all  the  equipment  of  war  may  be  transported,  to  the  number  of  millions, 
much  more  quickly  than  an  army  of  equal  numbers  of  raw  volunteers  could 
be  got  together  and  put  in  the  field.  Consequently,  when  the  present 
European  war  is  over,  if  England  should  be  relieved  of  the  necessity  there- 
after of  watching  her  neighbors,  she  might  very  likely  come  after  us,  and 
then  our  Canadian  boundary  line  would  need  to  be  fortified;  and  with 
England's  vast  fleet  of  warships  and  transports,  our  so-called  splendid 
isolation  would  be  breached  at  once. 

Should  Germany  or  Austria  win  the  present  war,  or  fight  themselves 
hand  free  of  the  Allies,  the  Germans  would  be  able  to  land  a  vast  army  of 
war-tried  veterans  on  our  shore  in  a  few  weeks,  with  all  their  equipment. 

All  the  most  eminent  naval  and  military  authorities  are  in  unanimous 
agreement  that  either  Germany  or  England  could  land  enough  men  and 
munitions  on  our  Atlantic  seaboard  in  less  than  a  month  effectually  to 
invade  our  territory  and  capture  the  entire  munitions  area  between 
Boston  and  Baltimore,  New  York  and  Niagara,  and  they  are  all  in  agree- 
ment that  when  this  territory  should  be  captured  we  would  thereafter  be 
unable  to  provide  ourselves  with  the  necessary  war  munitions  ever  to  drive 
them  out,  and  we  should  consequently  be  compelled  to  buy  them  off  at 
whatever  ransom  they  might  see  fit  to  exact. 

The  reader  is  referred  to  the  extracts  from  the  testimony  of  General 
Wood  before  a  Congressional  Committee  printed  in  this  volume. 


HEAD  12 

MISREPRESENTATION  OF  EVIDENCE 

One  would  think  on  reading  the  quotations  made  by  Claude  Kitchin, 
Bryan  and  other  pacifists,  from  the  testimony  of  Army  and  Navy  experts 
before  congressional  committees,  that  this  country  is  amply  prepared 
against  any  war  emergency — that  our  navy  is  the  strongest  in  the  world 
next  to  that  of  England,  and  that  it  would  be  impractical  if  not  impossible 
for  an  enemy  to  bring  an  army  over  seas  to  invade  this  country,  and 
that  should  an  enemy  succeed  in  landing  upon  our  shores  he  would 
immediately  find  himself  landed  upon  by  us  and  crushed. 

It  is  a  curious  condition  of  affairs  indeed  when  congressmen  and 
members  of  the  cabinet  and  other  civilian  officers  of  the  Government  are 
privileged  to  have  perfectly  free  speech  regarding  naval  and  military 
matters  and  our  needs  or  lack  of  needs  for  national  defense,  while  our 
officers  of  the  army  and  navy  are  gagged  and  not  permitted  t$  express 
their  opinions  except  when  some  of  them  are  selected  for  cross-examination 
by  some  congressional  committee. 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  115 

Congressman  Kitchin  says,  in  his  Statement  to  the  Press  of  November 
20,  1915,  given  in  this  volume: — 

"  Let  it  be  first  understood  that  in  the  '  Preparedness ' 
programme  the  Navy  of  Great  Britain  is  eliminated.  This 
was  so  testified  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  Admiral 
Fletcher,  and  other  naval  experts,  and  even  by  Hobson,  in 
the  hearings  before  the  Naval  Committee  at  the  last  session 
of  Congress,  all  declaring  that  we  do  not  need  or  desire  a 
navy  as  strong  as  hers." 

Nevertheless,  the  following  quotations  from  Mr.  Hobson's  speech  in 
the  House  of  Representatives  on  February  5,  1915,  flatly  contradict  Mr. 
Kitchin:— 

"  We  must  have  a  Navy  in  the  Atlantic  equal  to  that  of 
Germany  and  a  Navy  in  the  Pacific  equal  to  that  of  Japan; 
and,  consequently,  we  must  have  a  total  Navy  equal  to  the 
combined  navies  of  the  two  countries.  .  .  . 

"The  march  of  history  cannot  be  set  aside.  America 
cannot  escape  her  responsibilities,  even  if  she  would.  As 
Members  we  may  temporarily  ignore  them  here,  but  the 
mighty  march  of  destiny  in  the  progress  of  civilization  and 
the  advance  of  the  race  is  going  to  demand  that  in  the  inter- 
ests of  humanity  America  shall  supplant  Great  Britain 
upon  the  high  seas  of  the  world.  (Applause.) 

"  The  present  exigencies  may  involve  the  Monroe  doc- 
trine in  an  acute  stage  in  Mexico.  We  are  not  certain  that 
after  the  war  is  over,  if  Great  Britain  should  be  victorious, 
she  would  consent  to  America's  continued  paramountcy  in 
Mexico.  Our  paramountcy  in  Mexico  under  the  Monroe  doc- 
trine and  the  open-door  policy  and  integrity  of  China  are  our 
settled  foreign  policies.  These  foreign  policies  demand  that 
America  should  have  a  Navy  as  big  as  the  navies  of  Great 
Britain  and  Japan  combined.  In  other  words,  instead  of  the 
British  two-power  policy  it  must  hereafter  be  an  American 
two-power  policy." 

Again  I  quote  from  Hon.  Claude  Kitchin: — 

"All  the  talk  and  writings  by  the  press  and  so-called 
'Patriotic  Societies'  about  our  'utter  helplessness/  our 
s  growing  weakness/  our  '  having  fallen  to  the  third  or 
fourth  grade  of  inferiority  in  naval  strength,'  etc.,  is  pure 
tommyrot,  based  not  on  a  single  fact."  .  .  . 

Yet  President  Wilson,  on  January  31,  1916,  said  at  the  Auditorium, 
Chicago: — 

"We  have  one  considerable  arm  of  force — a  very  con- 
siderable arm  of  force — namely,  the  splendid  navy  of  the 
United  States.  I  am  told  by  experts,  to  whose  judgment  I 
must  defer  in  these  matters,  that  the  navy  of  the  United 
States  ranks  only  fourth  among  the  navies  of  the  world." 


116  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

Mr.  KJtchen  continues: — 

"  Admiral  Fletcher,  the  highest  active  officer  in  the  navy, 
commander  of  the  Atlantic  Fleet,  the  man  who  will  have 
to  do  the  fighting,  if  any  is  to  be  done  (whose  judgment  on 
naval  subjects  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  before  the  Naval 
Committee,  declared  he  had  sooner  take  than  that  of  any 
man  in  the  world,  expressly  declared,  at  the  naval  hearings 
during  the  last  session  of  Congress,  that  we  had  a  navy, 
'  superior  to  that  of  Germany  or  any  other  nation  except 
Great  Britain.' " 

The  following  quotation  is  taken  from  the  testimony  of  Admiral 
Fletcher  before  the  Committee  on  Naval  Affairs,  House  of  Representatives, 
March  2,  1916,  and  is  exactly  contrary  to  the  words  of  Mr.  Kitchin: — 

"The  question  naturally  arises,  and  is  often  asked,  How 
does  our  Navy  rank  with  those  of  other  powers?  I  think  the 
committee  has  ample  statistics  to  show  that  our  Navy  now 
ranks  about  third  or  fourth. 

"If  we  consider  that  dreadnaughts  constitute  the  main 
fighting  strength  of  any  navy,  and  place  navies  in  the  order  ofi 
number  of  dreadnaughts  now  in  commission,  it  would  run 
something  like  this:  England,  48;  Germany,  25;  the  United 
States,  8;  France,  7.  That  includes  battle  cruisers.  .  .  . 

"  It  is  shown  in  the  report  that  we  have  a  great 
shortage  in  personnel,  of  both  officers  and  men,  to  efficiently 
man  the  fleet  that  should  be  kept  in  commission.  We  have 
little  or  no  reserve  to  call  upon  for  manning  the  ships  which 
are  not  in  commission  with  the  fleet.  We  are  greatly  lacking 
in  scouts  and  fast  battle  cruisers  to  effectively  utilize  the 
power  of  our  battleships.  We  have  not  a  proper  proportion 
of  destroyers  to  round  out  the  fleet  and  utilize  the  power  of 
the  battleships. 

"  This  war  in  Europe  has  shown  that  our  submarines  are 
not  of  a  type  that  can  effectively  operate  for  any  distance  or 
operate  with  the  fleet.  They  should  have  greater  seagoing 
qualities  and  better  habitability,  in  order  to  have  a  type  that 
is  more  suitable  for  our  needs  on  this  coast.  These  qualities 
are  more  essential  than  high  speed. 

"  Our  aircraft,  our  aerial  service,  is  far  behind  the  devel- 
opments abroad. 

"  Finally,  our  fleet  is  too  small  to  insure  protection  to  our 
interests." 

A  LETTER  FROM  THEODORE  ROOSEVELT 

I  am  no  politician.  I  do  not  presume  to  speak  with  authority  upon 
subjects  about  which  I  know  nothing.  In  this  I  am  unlike  the  pacifists 
who  speak  the  most  authoritatively  upon  the  subjects  about  which  they 
know  the  least. 

In  this  present  day  and  generation,  when  a  captain  of  industry  speaks 
upon  an  industrial  subject,  it  is  customary  to  attribute  ulterior  motives  to 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  117 

him,  and  accordingly  to  discount  what  he  says.  When  a  railroad  president 
talks  about  railroads,  what  he  says  is  for  the  same  reason  discounted. 
When  an  eminent  banker  or  financier  testifies  upon  the  subject  of  finance, 
his  words  are  generally  weighed  in  the  balance  of  ignorance  and  prejudice 
and  found  wanting.  When  a  distinguished  army  or  navy  officer  testifies 
upon  the  subject  of  our  needs  for  national  defense,  he  is  suspected  of  being 
actuated  by  ulterior  motives — he  is  suspected  of  a  desire  to  win  promotion 
and  increase  his  salary,  and  what  he  says  is  discounted. 

Above  all,  when  a  munition  maker  testifies  about  preparedness  against 
war,  it  seems  inconceivable  to  many  minds  that  he  could  by  any  possibility 
be  honest  in  his  convictions:  he  must  of  necessity  be  actuated  by  ulterior 
motives,  though  upon  the  most  superficial  examination  it  may  be  seen  that 
whereas  preparedness  against  war  is  an  insurance  against  war  and  lessens 
the  likelihood  of  war,  and  whereas  a  munition  maker  makes  ten  times  as 
much  profit  in  time  of  war  as  in  time  of  peace,  his  advocacy  of  prepared- 
ness against  war  is  also  advocacy  of  preparedness  against  sen.  opportunity 
to  make  profits  in  his  business. 

When  a  man  of  much  wealth  speaks  upon  the  subject  of  our  social 
or  economic  needs,  the  very  fact  that  he  is  a  man  of  means  is  popularly 
supposed  to  disqualify  him  to  speak  authoritatively  about  that  concerning 
which  he  is  the  best  informed,  because  he  is  supposed  to  be  dishonest  in 
what  he  says. 

Thus,  it  has  come  about  that  upon  the  greatest  public  questions  and 
concerns  of  the  day,  the  counsel  of  the  ignorant,  the  inexperienced  and 
the  improvident  is  accepted  by  the  people  as  their  guide,  because  the  people 
wish,  above  all  things,  to  get  honest  and  unbiased  counsel. 

Recently,  I  read  the  following  passage  from  a  speech  by  Elihu  Roet, 
which  is  very  well  worth  quoting  in  this  connection: -4- 

"  Measures  relating  to  the  great  business  and  the  small 
and  multitudinous  business  of  the  country  have  been  framed 
and  put  into  effect  under  influences  which  have  rejected  the 
voice  of  those  whom  they  most  immediately  affect.  The  rail- 
road man's  testimony  of  what  legislation  there  should  be 
affecting  railroads  has  been  rejected  because  he  was  a  party 
in  interest.  The  banker's  testimony  about  finance  has  been 
rejected  because  he  was  a  party  in  interest.  The  manu- 
facturer's testimony  about  manufacturing  has  been  rejected 
because  he  was  a  party  in  interest.  The  merchant's  testimony 
about  commerce  has  been  rejected  because  he  was  a  party  in 
interest.  The  ship-owner's  testimony  about  the  merchant 
marine  has  been  rejected  because  he  was  a  party  in  interest. 
Knowledge  of  the  business  affairs  of  the  country  has  dis- 
qualified men  from  taking  any  part  in  the  conduct  of  the 
increasing  participation  of  the  government  in  the  control  and 
direction  of  business  affairs." — Extract  from  an  address  "by 
the  Hon.  Elihu  Root,  to  the  Union  League,  Philadelphia,  Pa.f 
March  23,  1915. 

Of  all  men  in  the  United  States  competent  to  speak  upon  the  subject 
of  our  needs  for  national  defense,  there  is  no  man  better  qualified  by 
education  and  experience  than  Theodore  Roosevelt. 

Theodore  Roosevelt  is  the  most  capable,  most  accurate  and  honest  his- 


118  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR' 

torian  that  America  ever  produced.  His  knowledge  of  historical  facts  is 
phenomenal.  "  History  as  Literature,"  by  Theodore  Roosevelt,  contains 
passages  unsurpassed  in  the  English  prose  literature  of  the  world. 

The  experience  of  an  individual  must  be  that  individual's  guide;  like- 
wise, the  experience  of  the  nations  should  be  a  nation's  guide,  and  no  man 
who  does  not  possess  a  good  knowledge  of  history  can  be  qualified  to 
advise  a  nation  what  to  do  regarding  the  subject  of  national  defense. 

A  year  ago,  on  the  publication  of  "  Defenseless  America,"  I  sent  out 
ten  thousand  copies  of  the  two-dollar  edition  of  the  work,  with  my  com- 
pliments, free,  to  students  graduating  in  American  universities.  The 
students  of  all  the  colleges  gladly  welcomed  the  gift,  with  a  single  excep- 
tion— an  institution  in  Boston,  the  name  of  which  I  will  not  mention  here, 
declined  to  receive  the  books,  writing  me  a  letter  in  which  they  stated,  in 
effect,  that  they  were  absolutely  opposed  to  war  even  though  it  were  in 
defense  of  the  country.  It  is  to  this  incident  that  Mr.  Roosevelt  refers  in 
his  letter,  given  below: — 

Oyster  Bay,  Long  Island,  N.  Y., 

June  3rd,  1915. 

My  dear  Mr.  Maxim: — I  thank  you  heartily  for  your  book  on  "Defenseless 
America."  It  is  a  capital  book  and  I  believe  it  is  safe  to  say  that  no  wise 
and  patriotic  American  can  fail  to  recognize  the  service  that  you  have 
rendered  in  writing  it.  I  hope  it  will  have  the  widest  possible  circulation 
throughout  our  country. 

I  was  glad  to  see  the  first-class  letters  that  have  been  written  you 
by  such  good  Americans  as  Oscar  Straus,  Garrett  P.  Serviss,  Rear- Admiral 
W.  W.  Kimball,  C.  P.  Gray,  Holman  Day  and  the  others.  On  the  other 
hand,  I  was  saddened  by  the  extraordinary  letter  sent  you  by  the  three 
young  >men  who  purported  to  speak  for  the  Senior  Class  of  the  College  of 
which  they  are  members.  The  course  of  conduct  which  these  men  and 
those  like  them  advocate  for  the  nation  would  of  course  not  only  mean  a 
peculiarly  craven  avoidance  of  national  duty  by  our  people  at  this  time, 
but  would  also  inevitably  tend  permanently  to  encourage  the  spirit  of 
individual  cowardice  no  less  than  of  national  cowardice. 

The  professional  pacifists,  the  professional  peace-at-any-price  men,  who 
during  the  last  five  years  have  been  so  active,  who  have  pushed  the  mis- 
chievous all-arbitration  treaties  at  Washington,  who  have  condoned  our 
criminal  inactivity  as  regards  Mexico  and  above  all  as  regards  the  ques- 
tions raised  by  the  great  world  war  now  waging,  and  who  have  applauded 
our  abject  failure  to  live  up  to  the  obligations  imposed  upon  us  as  a  sig- 
natory power  of  the  Hague  Conventions,  are  at  best  an  unlovely  body  of 
men,  and  taken  as  a  whole  are  probably  the  most  undesirable  citizens  that 
this  country  contains. 

But  it  is  less  shocking  to  see  such  sentiments  developed  among  old 
men  than  among  young  men.  The  college  students  who  organize  or  join 
these  peace-at-any-price  leagues  are  engaged,  according  to  their  feeble 
abilities,  in  cultivating  a  standard  of  manhood  which  if  logically  applied 
would  make  them  desire  to  "  arbitrate "  with  any  tough  individual  who 
slapped  the  sister  or  sweetheart  of  one  of  them  in  the  face.  Well-meaning 
people,  as  we  all  know,  sometimes  advocate  a  course  of  action  which  is 
infamous;  and,  as  was  proved  by  the  great  Copperhead  party  fifty  years 
ago,  there  are  always  some  brave  men  to  be  found  condoning  or  advocating 
deeds  of  national  cowardice.  But  the  fact  remains  that  the  advocates  of 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  119 

pacificism  who  have  been  most  prominent  in  our  country  during  the  past 
five  years  have  been  preaching  poltroonery.  Such  preaching,  if  persevered 
in  long  enough,  softens  the  fiber  of  any  nation  and  above  all  of  those 
preaching  it;  and  if  it  is  reduced  to  practice  it  is  ruinous  to  national  char- 
acter. These  men  have  been  doing  their  best  to  make  us  the  China  of  the 
Occident;  and  the  College  students  such  as  those  of  whom  you  speak 
have  already  reached  a  level  considerably  below  that  to  which  the  higher 
type  of  Chinaman  has  now  struggled  on  his  upward  path. 

On  the  whole,  for  the  nation  as  for  the  individual,  the  most  con- 
temptible of  all  sins  is  the  sin  of  cowardice;  and  while  there  are  other 
sins  as  base  there  are  none  baser.  The  prime  duty  for  this  nation  is  to 
prepare  itself  so  that  it  can  protect  itself;  and  this  is  the  duty  that  you 
are  preaching  in  your  admirable  volume.  It  is  only  when  this  duty  has 
been  accomplished  that  we  shall  be  able  to  perform  the  further  duty  of 
helping  the  cause  of  world  righteousness  by  backing  the  cause  of  the  inter- 
national peace  of  Justice  (the  only  kind  of  peace  worth  having)  not 
merely  by  words  but  by  deeds. 

A  Peace  Conference  such  as  that  which  some  of  our  countrymen 
propose  at  the  moment  to  hold  is  purely  noxious,  until  as  a  preliminary 
we  put  ourselves  in  such  shape  that  what  we  say  will  excite  the  respect 
and  not  the  derision  of  foreign  nations;  and,  furthermore,  until  we  have 
by  practical  action  shown  that  we  are  heartily  ashamed  of  ourselves  for 
our  craven  abandonment  of  duty  in  not  daring  to  say  a  word  when  the 
Hague  Conventions  were  ruthlessly  violated  before  our  eyes. 

Righteousness  must  be  put  before  peace;  and  peace  must  be  recog- 
nized as  of  value  only  when  it  is  the  handmaiden  of  justice.  The  doctrine 
of  national  or  individual  neutrality  between  right  and  wrong  is  an  ignoble 
doctrine  unworthy  the  support  of  any  brave  or  honorable  man.  It  is 
wicked  to  be  neutral  between  right  and  wrong;  and  this  statement  can 
be  successfully  refuted  only  by  men  who  are  prepared  to  hold  up 
Pontius  Pilate,  the  arch-typical  neutral  of  all  time,  as  worthy  of  our 
admiration.  An  ignoble  peace  may  be  the  worst  crime  against  humanity; 
and  righteous  war  may  represent  the  greatest  service  a  nation  can  at  a 
given  moment  render  to  itself  and  to  mankind. 

Our  people  also  need  to  come  to  their  senses  about  the  manufacture 
and  sale  of  arms  and  ammunition.  Of  course,  the  same  moral  law  applies 
here  between  nations  as  between  individuals  within  a  nation.  There  is 
not  the  slightest  difference  between  selling  ammunition  in  time  of  war 
and  in  time  of  peace,  because  when  sold  in  time  of  peace  it  is  only  sold 
with  a  view  to  the  possibility  or  likelihood  of  war.  It  should  never  be 
Bold  to  people  who  will  make  bad  use  of  it,  and  it  should  freely  be  sold 
at  all  times  to  those  who  will  use  it  for  a  proper  purpose.  It  is  abso- 
lutely essential  that  we  should  have  stores  where  citizens  of  a  nation  can 
buy  arms  and  ammunition.  It  is  a  service  to  good  citizenship  to  sell  a 
revolver  to  an  honest  householder  for  use  against  burglars,  or  to  a  police- 
man for  use  against  gunmen.  It  is  an  outrage  against  humanity  know- 
ingly to  sell  such  a  revolver  to  a  burglar  or  a  gunman. 

The  morality  of  the  sale  depends  upon  the  purpose  and  the  probable 
use.  This  is  true  among  individuals.  It  is  no  less  true  among  nations. 
I  am  speaking  of  the  moral  right.  Our  legal  right  to  sell  ammunition 
to  the  Allies  is,  of  course,  perfect,  just  as  Germany,  the  greatest  trader 
in  ammunitions  to  other  nations  in  the  past,  had  an  entire  legal  right  to 
sell  guns  and  ammunition  to  Turkey,  for  instance.  But,  in  addition  to 
our  legal  right  to  sell  ammunition  to  those  engaged  in  trying  to  restore 


120  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

Belgium  to  her  own  people,  it  is  also  our  moral  duty  to  do  so,  precisely; 
as  it  is  a  moral  duty  to  sell  arms  to  policemen  for  use  against  gunmen. 
Wishing  you  all  possible  success,  I  am 

Faithfully  yours, 

(Signed)     THEODORE  ROOSEVELT. 
Hudson  Maxim,  Esq., 

Landing,  New  Jersey. 


A  SHORT  SPEECH  OR  DECLAMATION  ON  NATIONAL 

DEFENSE 

I  have   received  many  inquiries  from  high  school  and  college  boys 
for  a  good  short  speech  on  national  defense  which  they  could  use  as  a 
declamation.    The  following  may  serve  the  purpose: — 
FELLOW  AMERICANS: 

Our  country  is  in  very  grave  danger,  because  rich  and  defenseless, 
while  other  nations  are  armed  to  the  teeth.  The  writing  is  on  the  wall 
that  spells  our  invasion  and  desolation. 

Self-preservation  is  the  first  law  of  Nature.  No  individual  and  no 
nation  has  ever  disobeyed  that  law  for  long  and  lived;  and  it  is  too  big 
a  task  for  the  United  States  of  America. 

I  am  well  aware  of  the  fact  that  nothing  I  can  say  is  likely  to  rouse 
the  people  of  my  country  to  their  danger,  and  make  them  prepare  ade- 
quately and  in  time  against  the  red  hell  of  war. 

Pacifism  has  ringed  the  nose  of  the  American  people,  and  is  leading 
them,  blind  and  unknowing,  to  slaughter.  War  is  inevitable.  It  matters 
not  that  if  this  country  could  be  roused  it  might  be  saved.  When  it  is 
impossible  to  vitalize  the  impulse  necessary  to  the  accomplishment  of  a 
thing,  that  thing  is  impossible.  So  I  say  war  is  inevitable  and  imminent. 

The  American  people  could  not  now  be  roused  sufficiently  to  avert 
the  impending  calamity  even  by  a  call  that  would  rift  the  sky  and  shake 
down  the  stars  from  heaven! 

Fate  has  decreed  that  our  pride  shall  be  humbled  and  that  we  shall 
be  bowed  to  the  dirt.  We  must  first  put  on  sackcloth,  ashed  in  the 
embers  of  our  burning  homes.  Perhaps,  when  we  build  anew  on  the  fire- 
blackened  desolation,  our  mood  may  be  receptive  of  the  knowledge  that 
we  must  shield  our  homes  with  blood  and  brawn  and  iron. 

He  who  is  not  ready  with  his  life  to  shield  the  woman  of  his  heart 
and  the  loved  ones  of  his  home  from  the  unspeakable  lust  of  a  savage 
soldiery  has  not  red  blood  enough  in  him  to  blush  for  shame.  He  is  less 
a  man  than  the  primeval  savage  whose  home  was  the  hill  cavern.  He  is 
below  the  gorilla,  for  the  gorilla  guards  his  home.  He  is  a  reversion  to 
a  type  below  the  ape,  far  down  the  scale  of  living  things  to  some  slimy 
monster  wallowing  in  the  ancient  ooze. 

When  there  comes  a  clash  of  arms  between  civilized  nations,  and  the 
sword  is  once  wet  with  blood,  dormant  brutehood  comes  to  the  surface 
and  submerges  pity,  mercy,  conscience. 

To  arms,  then,  for  defense,  and  when  the  great  European  War  is 
ended,  let  us  join  arms  with  the  survivors  of  civilization,  thereafter  to 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  121 

compel  good  behavior  through  an  international  police  force,  governed  by 
a  central  tribunal  of  justice,  representative  of  all  the  nations. 

Russian,  Teuton,  Latin,  Anglo-Saxon,  when  you  shall  have  returned 
your  blood-red  swords  to  their  scabbards,  then  join  hands  over-seas  with 
us  Americans,  who  are  kin  to  all  the  blood  you  have  spilled,  and  let  us 
take  serious  counsel  of  one  another. 

But,  Americans,  though  we  may  turn  our  faces  toward  the  morning 
that  should  come,  such  posturing  cannot,  any  more  than  the  cock's  crow, 
bring  the  morning;  and  until  the  great  world  compact  shall  be  made,  it 
is  the  eupreme  duty  of  the  American  people  to  prepare  with  loaded  guns 
and  naked  swords  to  stand  alone. 


TO  ARMS  FOR  PEACE 
Anonymous 

Now  mourning  night-airs  linger  on  the  day; 
The  saddened  Sun  is  sorrow  all  his  way; 
His  goaded  light  is  messenger  of  pain, 
And  tortures  sense  until  it  numbs  the  brain. 

The  smoke  of  battle  leadens  every  morn, 
From  Boreal  snow  to  Islam's  Golden  Horn. 
The  three  Norns  hover  on  the  sullen  sky, 
And  weave  portending  wands  and  prophesy. 

Their  gestured  menace  bids  us  be  aware, 
And  lest  we  would  be  slaves,  prepare,  prepare. 
They  beckon  into  form  a  battle-yield 
Of  souls,  ascending  from  the  slaughter-field. 

These  strands  of  broken  life,  wanded  on  air, 
Bear  fearful  import — Lest  we  die,  prepare! 
To  arms!     To  arms!     Blast  all  the  furnace  fires- 
Forge  in  our  hearts  the  spirit  of  our  sires — 

Forge  into  swords  the  steel  witli  cutting  edge — 
Forge  guns  to  guard  our  freedom's  sacred  pledge. 
Let  all  the  vulcan  furnaces  be  driven — 
Forge  thunder-bolts,  out- thundering  the  heaven! 

Rear  battlements  upon  the  mountain  crest 
And  battlements  upon  the  ocean  breast — 
Go,  fortify  the  earth,  the  sea,  the  air, 
And  fortify  our  hearts — Prepare,  prepare! 


PRAISE  FROM  PATRIOTS 


Extracts  From  a  Few  of  Hundreds  of  Letters  Praising 
HUDSON     MAXIM'S     DEFENSELESS     AMERICA 


THEODORE  ROOSEVELT: 

"  'Defenseless  America'  is  a  capital  book.  I  hope  it 
will  have  the  widest  possible  circulation  throughout 
our  country.  The  prime  duty  .for  this  nation  is  to 
prepare  itself  so  that  it  can  protect  itself;  and  this  is 
the  duty  that  you  are  preaching  in  your  admirable 
volume." 

OSCAR  S.  STRAUS: 

"  'Defenseless  America',  coming  from  an  expert,  will 
awaken  interest  in  the  most  practical  method  of  se- 
curing peace  by  safeguarding  our  national  existence. 
I  am  in  fullest  accord  with  your  Conclusion — an  in- 
ternational compact  with  adequate  international  force 
to  maintain  it,  and  give  adequate  guarantee  to  enforce 
its  decrees/' 

S.  S.  McCLURE: 

"A  most  convincing  book  on  an  extraordinarily  im- 
portant subject,  done  in  a  manner  not  only  convincing 
but  irrefutable." 

REAR-ADMIRAL  CHARLES  D.  SIGSBEE: 

"I  should  not  have  said  that  the  subject  could  be 
treated  in  a  way  to  make  it  fascinating  to  the  popular 
reader,  yet  I  now  think  that  is  precisely  what  you 
have  done.  May  the  book  bear  good  fruit!" 

GARRETT  P.  SERVISS: 

"  'Defenseless  America'  ought  to  go  into  the  hands 
of  ten  million  American  citizens  before  another  month 
passes.  You  have  done  a  magnificent  thing  for  your 
country!  In  God's  name,  may  she  turn  from  the  silly 
twaddle  of  the  pacifist  wiseacres,  and  save  herself, 
even  on  the  crumbling  verge!" 


PRAISE  FROM  PATRIOTS 

GEORGE  VON  LENGERKE  MEYER: 

"It  will  go  a  great  ways  toward  aiding  the  people  of 
this  country  to  realize  the  necessity  of  a  proper  national 
defense  and  a  preparedness  against  war." 

MRS.  JOHN  A.  LOGAN  : 

"I  wish  that  every  official  in  the  land  could  read  it." 

DR.  ORISON  SWETT  HARDEN: 

"A  colossal,  monumental  treatment  of  the  subject." 

FRANKLIN  D.  ROOSEVELT: 

"You  have  brought  the  whole  question  of  National 
Defense  to  a  basis  which  can  be  readily  understood  by 
the  average  layman." 

LIEUT.  BARON  HROLP  VON  DEWITZ: 

"In  'Defenseless  America'  you  explode  a  crater  01' 
information  on  the  subject  such  as  has  never  been 
detonated  before." 

COL.  BEVERLEY  W.  DUNN: 

"I  wish  to  congratulate  you  on  the  conspicuous  and 
valuable  service  that  you  have  rendered  the  people  of 
the  United  States  in  writing  this  book." 

DR.  E.  C.  BECK: 

"I  want  to  thank  you  from  the  bottom  of  my  heart 
for  this  masterpiece  of  revelation  on  your  part,  this 
opus  which  I  look  upon  in  the  nature  of  an  historical 
event.  May  the  Lord  use  your  book  to  pound  a  little 
sense  into  our  fellow  citizens." 

KEV.  J.  F.  STILLEMANS: 

"I  am  only  one  of  thousands  who  would  welcome  an 
edition  as  cheap  as  possible  of  'Defenseless  America' 
so  that"  we  could  distribute  it  freely." 

CLEVELAND  MOFFETT: 

"'Defenseless  America*  is  great  stuff  and  ought  to 
be  read  by  every  loyal  American." 

(W.  SIDNEY  JOPSON: 

"The  direct  results  of  reading  'Defenseless  America' 
were  that  I  went  to  Plattsburg  and  applied  for  ad- 
mission in  our  National  Guard." 


ADDENDA 


A.  BRIEF  BY  HUDSON  MAXIM  ON  THE  COLOSSAL  FOLLY  OF  THE 
PROPOSITION  FOR  THE  GOVERNMENT  TO  MAKE  ALL  WAR 
MUNITIONS. 

As  Published  in  Pamphlet  Form  by 
The  American  Defense  Society,  New  York. 

There  is  a  nation-wide  movement  to  have  all  war  munitions  manu- 
;actured  by  the  government.  The  movement  originated  with  the  pacifists, 
it  being  their  object,  as  they  claim,  to  take  the  profit  out  of  war.  They 
>elieve  that  it  is  necessary  only  to  show  that  war  is  profitable  to  muni- 
ion  makers  in  order  to  prove  that  munition  makers  foster  war  for  profit. 

It  is  their  belief  that  no  man  can  possibly  be  honest  or  patriotic  or 
>ossess  any  humanity  or  conscience  unless  he  can  possess  these  laudable 
qualities  without  loss  of  profit.  They  look  upon  these  admirable  attributes 
as  dispensable  luxuries  or  superfluities  that  a  person  will  sport  only  when 
ic  can  afford  them.  Their  contention  is  equivalent  to  the  assumption 
,hat  it  is  necessary  only  that  it  should  be  profitable  in  order  for  any  high- 
minded,  patriotic,  konest,  conscientious  and  humane  manufacturer  and 
msiness  man  to  turn  scoundrel  and  precipitate  war,  and  to  become  an 
accomplice  of  robbers,  thugs  and  murderers,  if  thereby  he  can  sell  a  few 
extra  munitions  and  make  a  little  more  profit. 

War  promoted  or  precipitated  for  profit  or  plunder  is  merely  banditry 
on  a  large  scale.  There  is  ethically  not  a  particle  of  difference  between 
lolding  up  a  nation  and  holding  up  a  stage  coach;  no  difference,  except 
n  the  magnitude  of  the  crime,  between  fostering  war  for  profit  and  foster- 
ng  highway  robbery  for  profit. 

The  pacifists  believe  that  it  is  necessary  only  to  show  that  there  is 
room  for  a  motive  to  commit  a  crime  in  order  to  prove  both  the  motive  and 
the  crime. 

The  ideas  of  most  persons  regarding  war  munitions  are  very  vague. 
Few  persons  know  what  the  expression  includes — in  short,  what  its  defini- 
tion is,  and  still  fewer  have  even  an  approximate  idea  of  the  vast  quantities 
of  munitions  that  would  be  required  by  this  government  in  the  event  of 
war  with  any  of  the  great  powers. 

The  expression  munitions  of  war  means  not  only  all  kinds  of  killing 
equipment,  but  also  all  kinds  of  life-sustaining  and  life-saving  equipment. 
Not  only  does  it  include  guns,  ammunition,  torpedoes,  submarine  mines, 
forts  and  fighting  ships,  but  also  it  includes  food,  clothing,  hospital  and 
Red  Cross  equipment,  automobiles,  horses,  mules,  saddles,  blankets,  tele- 
phone and  telegraph  by  wire,  and  wireless  telephone  and  telegraph.  In 
fact,  everything  with  which  armies  and  navies  are  supplied  or  equipped 
constitutes  munitions  of  war.  Therefore,  there  is  no  dividing  line  between 

127 


128  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

torpedoes  and  automobiles,  between  the  sword  and  the  telephone,  between  i 
gunpowder  and  clothing,  between  dynamite  and  surgical  instruments,  be-  i 
tween  bullets  and  bacon — all  are  munitions  of  war. 

If  the  object  of  the  pacifists   in  the  nationalization  of  munitions  of  I 
war  is  to  take  the  profit  out  of  war  by  making  it  impossible  for  those  who 
furnish  the  supplies  for  the  army  and  navy  to  make  any  profit  on  them,  j 
it  would  be  necessary  that  the  government  should  produce  everything  under 
the  sun  which  the  army  and  navy  might  require,  because  profit  in  war 
munitions  is  not  alone  confined  to  killing  equipment.     There  is  just  as 
much  profit  in  other  kinds  of  war  munitions  or  supplies,  and  profit  could 
not  be  taken  out  of  war  without  taking  it  out  of  the  food  supply  and  the 
clothing  supply.     It  would  be  as  necessary  to  cut  out  farmers  as  to  cut 
out  the  manufacturers  of  gunpowder. 

In  time  of  war  the  entire  energies  and  resources  of  a  nation  must  be 
drawn  upon  and  utilized  to  save  the  nation,  and  upon  the  extent  to  which 
they  can  be  mobilized  for  such  utilization  depends  victory  or  defeat. 

David  Lloyd  George,  British  Minister  of  Munitions,  in  a  recent  appeal 
made  by  him  to  union  workers  to  speed  the  output  of  munitions,  said, 
"  Unless  we  quicken  our  movements  damnation  will  fall  on  all  the  sacred 
cause  for  which  so  much  gallant  blood  has  been  shed."  He  said,  "  What 
we  stint  in  material  we  are  squandering  in  life."  Again,  he  said,  "  With 
regard  to  munitions,  what  is  spared  in  money  is  spilled  in  blood."  He 
pointed  out  the  fact  that  after  the  war  had  lasted  nearly  a  year  the  entire 
British  output  of  high  explosive  shells  was  only  2,500  a  day,  while  the 
Germans  were  making  250,000 — 100  times  that  number. 

If  England,  with  all  her  great  government  works,  and  with  all  her  still 
greater  private  manufactories  of  munitions  of  war,  helped  out  by  our  great 
private  manufactories,  is  still  so  short  of  the  necessary  supply  of  muni- 
tions, what  a  pitiful  plight  we  should  be  in  if  war  should  come  upon  us, 
even  were  we  to  utilize  our  present  private  industrial  equipment  for  muni- 
tions manufacture  to  the  full. 

What  a  colossal  folly  then  it  would  be  for  the  pacifists  and  politicians 
to  rob  this  government  of  the  support  of  its  private  industries  in  the  event 
of  war  and  depend  merely  upon  what  the  government  could  make. 

Not  only  would  it  be  impracticable,  but  also  utterly  impossible  for 
the  government  of  the  United  States  to  foreknow  what  it  would  want  and 
to  forejudge  the  quantity  it  would  want  of  munitions  of  war,  and  to  make 
and  store  them  in  time  of  .peace  adequate  to  the  needs  of  war. 

Not  only  do  many  kinds  of  war  munitions  deteriorate  with  age,  but 
also  the  character  of  war  munitions  is  constantly  changing  through  new 
inventions,  and  through  the  employment  of  new  and  unexpected  methods  of 
warfare. 

If  the  exact  date  for  the  coming  of  a  war  could  be  dependably  pre- 
arranged five  to  ten  years  in  advance,  the  case  would  be  somewhat  different. 
But  even  then  the  government  manufacture  ©f  munitions  would  only  be 
a  lesser  mistake.  It  would  still  be  a  stupendous  folly. 

There  has  not  yet  been  a  time  in  the  history  of  this  country  when  the 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  129 

proposed  plan  would  have  worked.  There  has  been  no  time  when  it  would 
not  have  been  disastrous.  Suppose  that  we  had  nationalized  the  manufac- 
ture of  war  munitions  in  1870,  utilizing  improvements  made  during  the 
Civil  War;  we  should  have  made  a  very  large  number  of  single-loading, 
cumbersome,  short-range  rifles,  and  a  large  quantity  of  black  gunpowder 
and  black  gunpowder  cartridges.  Our  field  cannon  would  have  been  of  the 
pot-metal,  short-range  type  of  that  period.  Our  Navy  would  have  con- 
sisted largely  of  Monitors  with  wrought-iron  armor. 

By  1880,  all  of  the  equipment  made  during  the  preceding  ten  years 
would  have  been  utterly  useless,  and  would  have  had  to  go  to  the  scrap 
heap. 

Had  we  repeated  the  folly  in  1880,  and  again  in  1890,  the  whole  product 
of  each  ten  years  would  have  had  to  be  scrapped. 

The  introduction  of  smokeless  powder  between  1880  and  1890  com- 
pletely revolutionized  firearms  and  methods  of  warfare,  rendering  every- 
thing previously  made  obsolete  and  useless. 

There  was  such  rapid  progress  in  the  development  of  smokeless  powders 
and  in  improvements  in  firearms  between  1890  and  1900  that  nothing  made 
at  the  beginning  of  that  decade  was  of  any  use  in  1900. 

Again,  had  we  begun  in  1900  to  manufacture  and  pile  up  munitions  of 
war  and  to  build  fighting  ships  and  equip  them  with  guns  and  self-pro- 
pelled torpedoes,  to  make  submarine  mines  to  strew  the  sea,  and  had  we 
raised  an  adequate  army  and  equipped  it  with  field  artillery  of  the  latest 
pattern,  we  should  today  find  most  of  the  entire  equipment  useless. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  world  which  so  needs  to  be  kept  up  to  date 
and  up  to  the  last  minute  as  munitions  of  war. 

During  the  past  fifteen  years,  high  explosives  have  been  introduced  as 
bursting  charges  for  projectiles  for  high  power  guns,  largely  due  to  my 
own  inventions  and  my  own  work.  Naval  guns  and  gun  control,  self- 
propelled  torpedoes  and  submarine  mines,  have  been  revolutionized  during 
the  past  fifteen  years. 

The  aeroplane  has  carried  warfare  into  the  third  dimension.  The 
present  war  has  introduced  many  new  methods  of  fighting  which  in  turn 
has  required  new  implements  of  war. 

Of  course,  it  may  now  be  said  that  we  have  practically  reached  the 
limit  of  improvement  in  munitions  of  war,  and  in  their  application  in 
battle.  There  has  not  been  a  time  since  the  discovery  of  the  use  of  fire,  the 
flint  spearhead  and  hatchet,  that  the  same  opinion  has  not  been  held. 
When  the  bow  and  arrow  was  introduced,  doubtless  the  primeval  savage 
believed  that  he  had  reached  the  limit  of  possibility  in  implements  of  war. 

Soon  after  the  American  patent  office  was  established,  the  Commis- 
sioner of  Patents  publicly  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  institution  would 
prove  utterly  useless  within  fifty  years,  because  within  that  time  every- 
thing capable  of  being  invented  would  be  invented.  Today  there  are  more 
inventions  filed  in  the  patent  office  in  a  single  year  than  were  filed  during 
that  entire  fifty  years. 

The  possibilities  of  invention  and  improvement  in  any  field  of  human 


130  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

endeavor  is,  for  all  practical  purposes,  unlimited.  We  shall  see  during  the 
next  ten  years  the  same  march  of  improvement  in  munitions  of  war  that 
we  have  seen  in  all  past  decades. 

We  want  to  avoid  ponderous  militarism  in  this  country.  We  do  not 
want  to  raise,  equip  and  maintain  too  large  an  army,  but  we  do  want  a 
very  large  number  of  citizens  trained  to  the  use  of  arms,  who,  after  they 
have  received  their  military  training,  shall  return  to  civil  life,  so  that  when 
war  comes,  they  can  immediately  be  called,  mobilized,  and  added  to  the 
regular  army. 

Similarly,  we  do  not  want  to  make  and  pile  up  colossal  quantities 
of  munition*  of  war,  but,  on  the  contrary,  what  we  should  do  is  to  make 
and  store  only  such  a  quantity  in  time  of  peace  as  shall  in  the  event  of 
war  be  adequate  to  the  requirements  of  national  defense  until  new  sup- 
plies can  be  furnished  by  the  mobilized  industries  of  the  country. 

At  least  ninety  per  cent,  of  the  munitions  made  in  time  of  peace  should 
be  made  by  private  industries,  in  order  to  encourage  them  and  keep  them 
in  a  condition  of  preparation  to  make  large  quantities  when  needed,  and 
also  to  serve  as  nuclei  for  rapid  and  efficient  enlargement. 

There  is  but  one  answer,  and  it  is  to  build  and  man  a  navy,  and  raise 
and  train  an  army,  each  of  sufficient  size  for  our  needs,  and  equip  them 
with  the  latest  and  best  war  munitions  available,  and  constantly  to  keep 
making  improvements  and  additions  in  order  to  keep  in  the  forefront  ot 
development. 

This  government  should  emulate  the  greater  wisdom  of  Germany  and 
co-opera  to  with  its  private  industries  for  the  common  welfare.  This  gov- 
ernment should  do  what  Germany  has  done  for  the  past  forty  years — 
encourage  private  industry  in  munitions  manufacture  in  a  large  way. 
This  government  should  do  as  did  the  German  government,  systematize 
its  industries  by  scientific  methods  with  a  view  to  government  service, 
that  they  may  be  immediately  mobilized  and  utilized  for  the  production 
of  munitions  of  war  of  the  greatest  excellence  in  the  largest  quantity  and 
in  the  shortest  time. 

As  a  result  of  the  European  war,  American  industries  have  largely 
been  enlisted  for  the  production  of  munitions  of  war  for  the  Allies.  They 
have  largely  been  financed  with  foreign  capital.  Old  munition  works 
have  been  enlarged,  many  of  them  fifty-fold,  some  a  hundred-fold.  Many 
new  works  have  been  built  all  over  the  country,  and  the  high  prices  that 
have  been  paid  by  the  Allies  under  the  stress  of  their  necessities,  will  make 
all  of  the  new  works  velvet  for  the  manufacturers,  with  a  large  profit 
besides. 

It  is  estimated  by  the  most  reliable  authorities  that  the  capacity  of 
the  United  States  at  this  writing  to  make  war  munitions  of  all  kinds,  as 
a  whole,  is  between  four  hundred  and  five  hundred  times  as  great  as  it  was 
at  the  time  the  European  war  broke  out.  Should  war  come  today,  private 
manufacturers  would  be  able  to  make  more  than  a  thousand  times  as  large 
a  quantity  of  munitions  as  would  the  government. 

After  the  war,  what?    Mr.  Kitchin,  Mr.  Cummings  and  Mr.  Tavenner, 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  131 

and  most  pacifists,  propose  nationalizing  the  manufacture  of  munitions  of 
war,  which  means  putting  all  the  great  and  numerous  private  works  out 
of  business. 

If  we  should  have  war  with  any  of  the  great  powers  we  should  need 
not  only  all  of  these  great  private  plants,  but  also  more.  With  all  we 
have  done  in  this  country  to  help  supply  the  Allies  with  munitions  of  war, 
we  have  been  able  to  produce  but  a  very  small  percentage  of  what  has  been 
required.  The  great  works  of  England,  France,  Italy  and  Russia,  have  all 
been  multiplied  many  fold,  and  yet,  with  all  that  they  can  do  and  all  that 
we  can  do,  there  are  not  munitions  enough.  The  Allies  have  been  con- 
stantly losing  ground,  mainly  from  lack  of  munitions. 

Therefore,  what  stupendous  government  works  would  be  required  if 
we  were  to  nationalize  the  manufacture  of  munitions  and  make  r  unlaw- 
ful for  private  manufacturers  to  make  them  for  the  government. 

The  small  arms  cartridge  works  in  Bridgeport  and  New  Haven  have 
grown  so  large  that  they  now  compass  an  area  to  make  that  occupied  by 
the  great  Egyptian  Pyramid  look  like  a  fly  speck. 

The  explosive  works  of  the  Du  Pont  Powder  Company,  at  Carney's 
Point,  stretch  along  the  Delaware  for  more  than  five  miles.  They  run  the 
twenty-four  hours  round,  and  at  night  they  blaze  with  a  light  to  dim  the 
constellated  heavens. 

But  these  great  works  are  only  a  part  of  the  works  that  are  now  being 
operated  by  that  company  in  different  localities.  At  Hopewell,  Virginia, 
alone  they  have  built  a  city  populated  with  an  army  of  workers  nearly  as 
large  as  the  army  of  regulars  that  the  United  States  Government  could, 
in  its  present  state  of  unpreparedness,  put  in  the  field.  High  explosives 
enough  are  made  every  day  at  Hopewell  to  produce  a  blast  that  would 
shame  an  earthquake. 

The  Westinghouse  works  devoted  today  to  the  making  of  war  muni- 
tions are  so  large  that  the  biggest  government  plant  would  be  lost  in  them 
and  as  much  out  of  sight  as  a  needle  in  a  haystack. 

There  is  a  larger  army  making  munitions  of  war  for  the  Bethlehem 
Steel  Company  alone  than  is  employed  in  every  government  arsenal  and 
workshop  in  this  country. 

Is  it  the  purpose  of  Messrs.  Cummins,  Kitchin  and  Tavenner  that  the 
government  shall  buy  and  operate  these  great  private  works,  or  is  it  their 
purpose  to  decree  their  destruction  as  a  punishment  to  munition  makers  for 
having  aroused  a  suspicion  that  they  have  been  actuated  by  ulterior  mo- 
tives in  becoming  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  war  munitions? 

But  how  about  operating  the  great  munition  plants  under  the  control 
of  officers  of  the  Army  and  Navy,  who  are  likewise  accused  of  having 
ulterior  motives?  Would  not  these  officers,  who  are  accused  of  fostering 
war  for  increased  pay  and  promotion,  be  likely  to  try  all  the  more,  and 
use  their  new  opportunities  to  foster  war  from  ulterior  motives? 

The  psychology  of  the  crook  is  in  its  main  essentials  the  same  for  all 
varieties.  The  sneak  thief  cries  "  Stop  Thief,"  in  order  to  place  another 
person  under  suspicion,  and  thereby  divert  suspicion  from  himself.  A 


132  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

politician  so  crooked  as  to  make  a  ram's  horn  look  like  a  gun  barrel,  who 
in  all  his  life  never  did  an  unselfish  thing,  and  whose  only  ability  is  in 
the  practice  of  political  jobbery  for  graft  and  personal  advantage,  ia 
naturally  incapable  of  understanding  how  anyone  could  have  a  personal 
interest  in  anything  and  not  be  crooked  about  that  thing.  Consequently, 
he  is  the  first  to  cry  "  Stop  Thief." 

What  does  it  mean  to  the  politicians  to  nationalize  the  manufacture 
of  munitions  of  war?  It  means  a  great  fruitage  of  political  plums  for 
their  use  and  behoof.  It  will  be  the  politicians  who  will  have  the  sole 
say  as  to  where  the  great  government  works  are  to  be  located,  and  they 
are  sure  to  be  located  not  with  respect  to  advantages  of  manufacture  and 
safety  in  time  of  war,  but  where  they  will  be  the  most  advantageous  as 
pawns  "or  political  profit,  the  same  as  has  proven  true  with  all  govern- 
ment works.  In  short,  the  manufacture  of  munitions  of  war  will  be  taken 
from  the  hands  of  honest  industry  and  placed  in  the  hands  of  dishonest 
politicians. 

If  it  were  true  that  our  city  governments  and  our  federal  government 
institutions  were  more  economical,  or  more  honestly  managed  than  are 
our  private  industries,  then  we  should  indeed  have  a  strong  argument  in 
favor  of  governmental  manufacture  of  munitions  of  war,  but  the  exact 
opposite  is  the  truth.  Our  city  governments  are  notoriously  corrupt.  If 
we  are  to  believe  what  the  politicians  say  about  one  another,  then  we  have 
a  very  strong  argument  in  favor  of  private  manufacture. 

Outside  of  our  penitentiaries,  there  is  no  class  of  persons  in  the  coun- 
try with  so  bad  a  name  as  the  average  politicians,  and  it  is  the  politicans 
themselves  who  are  the  informers  on  one  another.  If  we  are  to  take  the 
word  of  the  politicians  themselves  they  are  a  most  untrustworthy  lot. 
They  are  guilty  of  every  species  of  trickery,  chicanery  and  graft.  If  what 
they  say  of  themselves  is  not  true,  who  are  we  to  believe?  If  their  accusa- 
tions against  one  another  are  false,  that  fact  also  stamps  them  as  equally 
untrustworthy.  It  is  absolutely  certain  that  the  politicians  are  either  dis- 
honest in  their  actions  or  dishonest  in  their  accusations. 

To  take  the  manufacture  of  munitions  of  war  away  from  private  in- 
dustries and  to  turn  it  over  to  the  politicians,  in  order  to  escape  the 
suspicion  of  ulterior  motives,  would  indeed  be  jumping  from  the  frying 
pan  into  the  fire. 

In  New  York  City  and  other  large  cities,  the  United  States  mail  is  not 
carried  by  government  conveyances,  but  by  private  conveyances,  for  the 
reason  that  the  government  can  get  the  mail  carried  more  cheaply  than  it 
can  carry  it  itself. 

If  the  government  were  to  build  the  large  and  numerous  works  which 
would  be  required  to  meet  its  needs  for  munitions  of  war,  it  would  still 
be  to  the  interest  of  the  government,  as  a  matter  of  economy,  to  close 
those  works  and  hire  the  munitions  made  by  private  manufacturers,  and 
pay  those  manufacturers  a  good  large  profit,  and  a  profit  which  would  be 
an  encouragement  to  them  to  maintain  personnel  and  equipment  for  doing 
the  work. 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  133 

Thus,  as  I  have  pointed  out,  in  the  event  of  war  the  government  would 
have  the  use  of  all  the  great  private  industries  with  their  numerous  trained 
personnel  and  vast  capital. 

What  the  government  ought  to  do  is  to  provide  itself  manufactories 
of  munitions  of  war  of  moderate  size  in  order  to  keep  closely  in  touch 
with  manufacturing  development,  and  in  the  event  of  war  to  supplement  pri- 
vate manufacturers,  but  the  government  should  not  aim  at  the  .production 
of  a  tenth  part  of  the  munitions  it  needs. 

Such  has  been  the  German  policy,  and  we  can  do  no  better  than  to 
submerge  our  infantile  egotism,  and  profit  by  the  unmatched  wisdom  of 
Germany  in  all  that  relates  to  the  production  of  munitions  of  war. 

I  quote  the  following  from  a  manuscript  written  by  Lieutenant  R.  E. 
Gillmor,  ex-naval  officer  and  Annapolis  graduate,  at  the  request  of  Mr. 
Elmer  A.  Sperry,  of  the  Naval  Consulting  Board,  the  information  being 
asked  for  the  benefit  of  that  Board.  Major  Gillmor  is  managing  director 
of  the  Sperry  Gyroscope  Company  in  London: 

"  Every  naval  officer  and  every  civilian  interested  in  the  progress  of 
the  Navy  has  for  years  recognized  the  great  need  of  organized  co-operation 
between  the  practical  and  capable,  but  for  the  most  part  untechnical  per- 
sonnel of  the  Navy,  and  the  skilled  and  technical  engineering  professions 
of  our  country. 

"  I  look  upon  the  formation  of  the  Naval  Advisory  Board  as  a  first 
step  toward  this  highly  desirable  end — an  end  which  will  not,  however, 
be  fully  accomplished  until  there  is  complete  interchange  between  practi- 
cal naval  experience  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  technical  advice  and  engi- 
neering experience  of  our  best  in  the  world  civilian  engineers  and  scientists 
on  the  other  hand.  .  .  . 

"  Why  is  it  that  Germany  was  making  faster  industrial  and  com- 
mercial progress  than  any  other  nation  before  the  war?  Why  has  Ger- 
many up  to  the  present  been  successful  against  five  times  her  weight 
in  men  and  money?  Wliy  is  Germany  conducting  this  war  with  a  finan- 
cial expenditure  of  one-tenth  that  of  her  enemies?  Why  is  Germany 
doing  these  apparently  wonderful  things?  Is  it  because  an  absolute 
monarchy  is  a  better  form  of  government  than  democracy?  We  cannot 
believe  this  because  we  know  that  absolute  monarchy  means  oppression, 
lack  of  freedom,  cheap  labor  and  poverty.  Is  it  because  her  people  are 
especially  clever  or  because  they  are  men  of  super-intelligence?  We 
know  that  this  is  not  true,  because  we  have  been  in  Germany — we  have 
mingled  with  the  people,  and  we  know  them  to  be  men  of  only  average 
intelligence,  exceedingly  low  morals  and  of  some  unpleasant  characteris- 
tics. If  democracy  will  learn  the  answer  to  these  questions,  i.  e.,  that 
their  efficiency  for  peace  and  efficiency  for  war  depends  wholly  upon 
national  organization,  if  they  will  learn  the  lesson  of  this  war  and  apply 
it,  our  descendants  will  thank  God  for  this  bloody  struggle,  horrible 
though  it  has  had  to  be.  ... 

"  The  great  importance  of  a  thoroughly  equipped  research  laboratory 
is  well  known  to  anyone  who  has  followed  the  development  of  the  various 


134  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

navies  of  the  world.  The  work  done  in  this  laboratory  should,  however, 
be  intimately  connected  with  the  work  done  by  laboratories  of  private 
firms,  and  where  it  is  desirable  to  develop  machines  or  models  in  which 
some  particular  firm  specializes,  this  firm  should  be  subsidized  by  the 
Government  to  carry  on  the  work.  I  know  of  no  more  striking  instance 
of  the  value  of  this  than  that  given  by  the  present  day  situation  of  the 
aeroplane  development  in  Germany  and  England.  In  England  the  private 
manufacturer  was  discouraged  in  every  possible  way  by  the  Royal  Aircraft 
Factory.  In  Germany  every  private  firm  was  encouraged;  for  instance, 
the  Mercedes  Motor  Company  had  a  Government  subsidy  of  a  million 
dollars  a  year  for  developing  an  aeroplane  motor.  I  am  assured  by  those 
who  know,  the  Mercedes  motor,  with  which  all  German  aeroplanes  are 
now  equipped,  has  characteristics  which  cannot  be  duplicated.  The  Ger- 
man aeroplanes  themselves  are  very  crude  both  in  design  and  manufac- 
ture. For  instance,  not  a  piece  of  metal  is  used  in  the  fuselage,  which 
is  made  of  rough  strips  of  wood.  The  motor,  however,  is  so  powerful  for 
its  weight  that  it  pushes  the  aeroplane  past  anything  the  Allies  have  and 
has  literally  made  the  German  aeroplanes  cut  circles  around  the  best 
Allies  machines.  .  .  . 

"  Whatever  may  be  the  decision  of  the  Navy  Department  respecting 
the  Experimental  Laboratory,  I  hope  the  Navy  will  not  try  to  make  itself 
independent  of  the  manufacturer,  as  it  has  been  proved  by  this  war  that 
this  can  only  react  to  the  great  detriment  of  the  Navy." 

When  our  Naval  Consulting  Board  was  first  proposed,  it  was  called 
the  Civilian  Advisory  Board  on  Inventions,  but  at  the  first  meeting  in 
Washington,  at  which  I  was  present,  it  was  very  quickly  recognized  that 
the  examination  of  and  passing  upon  inventions  would  be  but  a  very  small 
part  ef  the  duties  of  the  Board.  The  main  duty  of  the  Board,  it  was 
recognized,  was  to  co-operate  with  the  government  in  such  a  way  as  to 
bring  to  the  government  the  benefit  of  the  wide  technical  knowledge  and 
experience  acquired  in  the  great  and  prosperous  private  industries.  The 
efficient  mobilization  of  the  industries  of  the  country  to  bring  them 
better  to  the  aid  of  the  government  in  time  of  war  for  the  production  of 
munitions  was  recognized  as  being  of  supreme  importance. 

Whom  shall  we  take  for  our  guide?  The  man  afflicted  with  appendi- 
citis does  not  consult  his  pastry  cook,  but,  on  the  contrary,  consults  an 
educated  and  experienced  physician  and  surgeon.  He  does  not  employ 
the  plumber  for  child-birth.  The  business  man  who  has  a  case  to  be  pleaded, 
in  court  does  not  employ  his  parson,  but,  on  the  contrary,  hires  a  good 
lawyer.  No  one  would  think  of  employing  his  lawyer  or  physician  to 
act  as  architect  to  design  a  house  for  him,  or  as  an  engineer  to  survey 
a  farm,  build  a  bridge,  or  construct  a  fighting-ship.  This  is  an  age  of 
specialists.  No  one  can  hope  to  succeed  greatly  in  any  line  unless  he 
specializes  in  that  line,  and  no  one  can  be  guided  correctly  in  any  special 
line  unless  he  is  guided  by  the  judgment  of  specialists 

The  same  thing  holds  true  with  the  United  States  Government.  Un- 
less this  government  is  guided  by  its  specialists,  guided  in  military  mat- 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  135 

ters  by  its  military  men,  in  naval  matters  by  its  navy  men,  in  industrial 
matters  by  its  business  men,  in  legal  matters  by  its  lawyers,  in  states- 
manship by  its  statesmen,  then  this  government  is  as  certain  to  steer 
straight  for  disaster  as  would  an  individual  who  should  follow  the  same 
method. 


A    BRIEF 

*  PROOF  THAT  PREPAREDNESS  INSURES  PEACE ;  PROOF  THAT 
WAR  IS  PROFITABLE  AND  PEACE  UNPROFITABLE  FOR 
MUNITION  MAKERS;  CONSEQUENTLY,  THAT  MUNITION 
MAKERS  WHO  HELP  THE  CAUSE  OF  PREPARED- 
NESS AGAINST  WAR  CANNOT  BE  ACTUATED  BY  ULTERIOR 
MOTIVES  FOR  PERSONAL  PROFIT,  BUT,  ON  THE  CONTRARY, 
THAT  THEY  ARE  ACTUATED  SOLELY  BY  THE  DESIRE 
TO  PRESERVE  PEACE  FROM  MOTIVES  OF  PURE  PATRIOT- 
ISM AND  HUMANITY. 

By  HUDSON  MAXIM 

A  thing  cannot  both  be  true  and  not  true  at  the  same  time.  If  one 
thing  is  a  fact,  the  exact  opposite  cannot  also  be  a  fact.  It  is  a  fact 
which  the  pacifists  charge  and  munition  makers  admit,  that  war  is  far 
more  favorable  to  the  making  of  profits  by  munition  makers  than  is  peace. 
The  facts  of  history  prove  this.  American  munition  makers  made  more 
money  during  the  Civil  War  than  they  made  during  the  long  period  of 
peace  which  followed  until  the  outbreak  of  the  Spanish  War;  and  during 
the  Spanish  War  they  made  more  money  than  they  made  between  the 
close  of  that  war  and  the  outbreak  of  the  European  War;  and  during  the 
past  year  and  a  half  they  have  made  more  money  than  they  would  be  able 
to  make  in  fifty  years  of  peace,  even  should  this  country  buy  sufficient 
munitions  from  them  for  adequate  preparation. 

In  time  of  peace,  government  specifications  are  very  exacting,  and 
the  margin  of  profit  is  very  small,  whereas  in  time  of  war  the  government 
is  glad  to  take  anything  that  it  can  get  and  to  pay  whatever  extravagant 
price  may  be  necessary  to  get  it. 

Since  the  outbreak  of  the  European  War,  the  Entente  Powers  have 
been  obliged  to  pay  from  a  hundred  per  cent,  to  seven  hundred  per  cent, 
higher  prices  than  they  would  have  had  to  pay  in  time  of  peace. 

The  sole  reason  why  the  pacifists  charge  munition  makers  with  ulte- 
rior motives  in  promoting  preparedness  is  that  they  believe  that  pre- 
paredness promotes  war  instead  of  promoting  peace,  while  the  exact 
opposite  is  the  truth. 

The  moment  it  is  admitted  that  preparedness  promotes  peace  and 
insures  against  war,  then  at  that  same  moment  it  must  be  admitted  that 
the  promotion  of  preparedness  by  munition  makers  cannot  by  any  possi- 


136  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

bility  be  from  ulterior  motives,  that  is  to  say,  with  a  view  to  increasing  i 
the  market  and  profit  for  their  wares. 

If  the  object  of  the  munition  makers  were  merely  profit,  they  would 
finance  the  propaganda  of  the  pacifists  and  try  to  defeat  preparedness,  for 
in  that  way  they  would  actually  promote  war. 

When  a  munition  maker  helps  the  cause  of  preparedness  and  thereby 
helps  the  cause  of  peace,  it  does  not  make  any  difference  what  his  motives 
may  be,  his  act  is  no  less  beneficent.  On  the  other  hand,  should  he  help 
support  the  propaganda  of  the  pacifists  for  unpreparedness,  he  would 
be  working  to  increase  the  sale  of  his  wares  and  to  increase  his  profits, 
and  the  result  of  his  action  would,  by  promoting  war,  be  evil,  regardless 
of  what  his  motives  might  be. 

A  good  story  is  told  of  an  old  woman  down  in  Maine  who  borrowed 
a  kettle  of  a  neighbor,  and  who  was  afterwards  accused  by  the  lender  of 
having  broken  the  kettle.  She  protested  that  the  kettle  was  cracked  when 
she  had  it,  that  it  was  certainly  whole  when  she  returned  it,  and,  finally 
that  she  never  had  the  old  kettle  at  all.  Of  such  sort  is  pacifist  rea- 
soning. 

PATRIOTIC    DUTY 

It  is  a  fact  recognized  and  admitted  by  all  acquainted  with  the  sub- 
ject, that  this  country  is  in  very  grave  danger,  and  that  our  danger  is 
as  actual  and  as  great  as  is  our  weakness,  and  that  if  we  should  become 
involved  in  war  with  any  of  the  great  powers,  we  should  find  ourselves 
practically  defenseless,  with  the  inevitable  result  that  very  large  num- 
bers of  our  young  men,  the  flower  of  the  country,  would  be  sacrificed  in 
useless  slaughter.  Our  country  would  be  invaded,  and  if  our  enemy  were 
a  European  nation  the  entire  Atlantic  seaboard  east  of  the  Alleghany 
Mountains  would,  in  a  very  short  time,  be  made  to  suffer  all  of  the 
calamities  that  Belgium  has  suffered. 

American  homes  would  be  entered  and  sacked,  and  the  women  rav- 
ished. Husband,  brother,  father  who  protested  would  either  be  shot  like 
a  dog  or  triced  up  and  made  an  unwilling  witness  of  the  orgies. 

Every  father,  husband,  brother,  who  puts  his  arm  around  the  woman 
he  loves,  must  realize  that  his  arm  is  not  a  shield — that  her  only  security 
against  violation  by  a  savage  soldiery  is  in  our  army  and  our  navy,  and 
if  that  is  inadequate — if  that  is  unable  to  defend  her — a  fate  worse  than 
death  is  lurking  for  her  in  our  weakness. 

The  appeal  of  such  duty  grips  the  heart  and  fires  the  mind,  and  makes 
the  blood  red-hot  in  the  veins.  In  face  of  such  duty  as  is  ours,  we  should 
not  for  one  moment  weigh  against  its  performance  any  consideration  of 
adverse  criticism.  The  condemnation  of  any  act  of  such  duty  is  praise. 
The  time  is  near  when  all  who  have  helped  the  cause  of  American  pre- 
paredness will  receive  high  praise  indeed. 

In  the  time  of  the  Civil  War,  those  who  worked  to  free  the  slaves 
were  called  black  abolitionists,  but  they  faced  criticism  and  the  slaves 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  137 

were  unshackled  and  now  we  all  look  upon  those  abolitionists  as  high- 
minded  heroes. 

The  great  men  of  science  and  philosophy  who  have  in  comparatively 
recent  times  lifted  the  world  from  the  abyss  of  ignorance  and  superstitu- 
tion  did  their  duty  because  it  was  their  duty,  conceiving  duty  to  be  rea- 
son enough.  They  were  undeterred  by  criticism. 

When  one  sees  his  duty  with  a  clear  vision,  and  knows  his  duty  with 
an  unbiased  mind,  the  doing  of  that  duty  needs  no  justification. 

Should  war  come  upon  us  in  our  present  state  of  unpreparedness, 
many  of  the  finest  young  men  of  our  acquaintance,  reader,  are  going  to 
be  slaughtered.  I  have  a  son  of  twenty-four — brave  and  strong.  He  will 
probably  either  be  killed  or  maimed  for  life. 

A  father  has  four  able-bodied  sons  of  fighting  age.  How  much  is  it 
worth  to  him  to  save  them  from  being  killed  or  maimed  for  life?  If  war 
should  come  in  our  present  state  of  unreadiness  one  of  them  would  al- 
most certainly  fall,  and  very  possibly  all  four.  Very  likely  also  his  wife 
and  daughter  would  be  outraged  unless  he  should  be  able  to  get  them  out 
of  the  war  zone  in  time. 

These  are  hard  things  to  think  about.  Such  thoughts  are  unwelcome 
guests  in  the  mind.  How  unwelcome  then  must  be  the  dread  realization 
of  such  things  in  actuality.  These  things  have  happened  to  the  Belgians 
and  to  the  people  of  Northern  France,  and  they  are  coming  our  way. 
Regardless  of  the  question  of  probability,  it  is  not  impossible  that  Ger- 
many may  win,  and  should  she  win,  or  even  should  she  be  able  to  effect  a 
peace  with  the  Allies  so  favorable  to  her  that  she  would  have  such  a  bal- 
ance of  power  in  her  favor  as  to  give  her  a  free  hand  in  dealing  with  us 
without  any  interference  from  the  other  nations,  then  God  help  America! 
It  is  our  duty  to  recognize  that  condition  as  a  possibility,  and  to  pre- 
pare for  it. 

On  the  other  hand,  should  the  Allies  win  and  Germany  be  crushed, 
our  danger  will  only  be  less — it  will  not  be  eliminated. 

Cassius  said  of  Caesar  that  it  was  impossible  to  forejudge  what  he 
might  do  if  armed  with  kingly  power,  so  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  fore- 
judge what  even  England  might  do  with  supreme  power. 

It  is  not  safe  for  any  nation  to  neglect  its  defenses,  and  place  itself 
absolutely  at  the  mercy  of  any  other  nation. 

When  this  war  is  over,  the  European  powers  are  going  to  be  both 
poor  and  powerful.  Rich  and  defenseless  America  will  then  look  very 
inviting.  Blood  may  be  thicker  than  water,  but  it  has  never  been  so 
thick  that  it  would  not  freely  flow  when  occasion  required. 

QUESTION   OF   ULTERIOR  MOTIVES 

In  the  town  where  we  lived  when  I  was  a  small  boy,  there  lived  in 
a  little  old  ramshackle  shanty  a  very  poor  and  very  religious  widow  with 
three  small  children. 

My  father  was  not  a  religious  man,  while  every  other  man  in  town 
was  a  professor  of  religion.  Returning  home  from  a  neighbor's  one  cold 


138  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

winter  evening  he  passed  the  widow's  shanty.  Hearing  someone  calling 
for  help  he  approached  the  hovel,  and  saw  through  the  window,  by  the 
dim  light  of  a  candle,  the  poor  widow  with  her  three  children  about  her 
on  their  knees,  while  the  widow,  with  hands,  eyes  and  voice  raised  to 
Heaven,  was  calling  for  food  and  fuel. 

My  father  listened  and  heard  her  recite  her  woes — how  she  had 
worked  and  slaved,  but  had  recently  fallen  ill,  and  that  although  her 
neighbors  knew  of  her  distress  no  one  came  to  her  relief. 

My  father  said  nothing,  but  \vent  home,  hitched  the  old  horse  to  the 
wood-sled,  put  on  half  a  cord  of  cut  firewood,  a  bushel  of  potatoes,  a  hunk 
of  bacon,  some  sugar,  flour,  butter  and  eggs;  also  some  doughnuts,  bis- 
cuits and  pie  ready  for  immediate  consumption. 

He  drove  up  in  front  of  the  shanty,  unloaded  the  wood,  and  took  the 
food  into  the  house,  much  to  the  amazement  of  the  widow.  She  fell  on 
her  knees  again  and  returned  thanks  to  God  for  His  intervention  in  her 
behalf,  assuring  Him  that  she  had  known  all  along  that  He  would  not 
desert  her  in  her  distress,  and  blaming  herself  for  lack  of  faith. 

My  father  told  her  that  he  was  the  one  that  she  ought  to  thank. 
"  Oh,  but,"  she  said,  "  the  Lord  sent  it,  even  if  the  devil  brought  it."  She 
told  him  that  he  might  have  brought  it  purely  from  ulterior  motives,  in 
order  to  cast  reflection  upon  her  religious  neighbors. 

It  did  not  make  any  difference  in  the  beneficence  of  my  father's  action 
what  his  motives  may  have  been.  I  know  that  he  was  a  big-hearted,  gen- 
erous man,  and  that  he  did  it  purely  from  sympathy  and  kindness,  but 
even  had  his  motives  been  those  she  attributed  to  him,  the  saving  grace  of 
the  action  was  as  great. 

If,'  reader,  your  house  were  on  fire,  and  someone  should  form  a  bucket 
brigade  and  extinguish  the  fire  and  save  your  house,  you  would  not 
suspect  him  of  ulterior  motives,  especially  if  he  were  a  lumber  merchant 
and  general  dealer  in  building  materials.  If,  later  on,  owing  to  the  num- 
ber of  wo@den  houses  of  inflammable  character  in  your  town,  he  should 
fear  the  town  to  be  in  danger  of  a  general  conflagration,  and  should  or- 
ganize a  brigade  for  fighting  fire — in  short,  if  he  were  to  advocate  and  pro- 
mote adequate  measures  for  defending  the  city  against  loss  by  fire,  he 
could  hardly  be  rationally  accused  of  doing  it  from  ulterior  motives  in 
order  to  promote  the  sale  of  his  lumber  and  other  building  materials.  If 
he  were  looking  merely  for  profit,  he  would  welcome  a  conflagration  and 
would  not  want  to  defend  the  city  against  it. 

Similarly,  the  munition  maker  who  helps  the  cause  of  preparedness 
against  war — who  helps  to  provide  an  adequate  army  and  navy  to  safe- 
guard and  insure  the  country  against  the  conflagration  of  war — cannot 
by  any  possibility  be  actuated  by  ulterior  motives  looking  to  increased 
profits. 

Whoever  works  for  peace  and  against  war,  whoever  helps  to  insure 
the  permanence  of  peace,  and  insure  against  war,  is  a  national  benefactor, 
and  his  action  does  honor  to  human  nature.  If  that  man  be  a  maker  of 
war  munitions,  his  action  is  even  more  creditable  and  honorable. 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  139* 


NEWSPAPER  PATRIOTISM 

The  press  is  the  greatest  single  potentiality  in  the 
world  in  shaping  and  leading  public  opinion.  That  the 
press  should  be  patriotic  is  of  the  greatest  importance. 

When  Wendell  Phillips  spoke  in  Faneuil  Hall,  Boston, 
for  the  abolition  of  slavery,  His  audience  was  made  up 
largely  of  the  slave-drivers'  friends,  who  were  the 
pacifists  of  that  time,  and  they  hissed  and  hooted  him 
until  he  could  not  be  heard.  Then  he  leaned  over  to  the 
newspaper  reporters  who  sat  near  the  platform,  and  to 
them  he  said,  '  '  Gentlemen,  when  I  speak  to  you  I  address 
the  world,  and  it  matters  little  who  else  hears  me." 

When  Henry  Ford's  full-page  advertisement  ap- 
peared in  the  New  York  World  on  April  12,  1916,  in 
which  he  attacked  me,  the  editor  of  the  New  York  Com- 
mercial called  upon  me  and  offered  me,  free  of  charge, 
the  space  of  a  page  in  the  Commercial  to  reply  to  Henry 
Ford. 

The  Chicago  Tribune  printed  the  Ford  advertisement 
on  the  same  date,  and  that  paper  published  simultane- 
ously a  very  strong  editorial  condemning  the  Ford 
propaganda,  pronouncing,  in  effect,  his  arguments  to  be 
illogical  to  the  last  degree ;  and  that  paper  sent  the 
money  paid  by  Ford  for  the  insertion  of  the  advertise- 
ment to  the  Navy  League,  to  be  used  to  help  the  cause 
of  national  defense. 

The  following  is  my  reply  to  Henry  Ford,  as  printed 
in  the  NEW  YORK  COMMERCIAL  of  April  14, 1916 :— 


140  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 


A   MESSAGE   TO    PATRIOTIC    AMERICANS 

AN  ANSWER  TO  MR.  HENRY  FORD 
BY  HUDSON  MAXIM 

About  fifteen  centuries  ago  a  horde  of  barbarians,  the  misshapen 
savage  Huns,  ogres  on  horseback,  swarmed  down  from  the  Asiatic  steppes, 
over  the  frontiers  ef  the  civilized  world  from  Constantinople  to  France, 
overriding,  overwhelming  everything  in  their  path,  leaving  nothing  in 
their  wake  but  a  blast  of  desolation  r.nd  death. 

That  horde  of  human  demons  was  led  by  a  man  with  a  neck  and 
face  composite  of  man,  of  ape,  of  rattlesnake  and  gila  monster.  He  called 
himself  The  Scourge  of  God.  That  name  was  his  pride.  That  ogre  of 
blood  was  Attila.  But  that  was  fifteen  hundred  years  ago,  and  the  men 
and  women  were  not  so  thick  in  the  path  of  the  human  game-hunters  as 
they  would  be  in  the  path  of  th.e  Huns  that  Henry  Ford  is  inviting  into 
this  country. 

Henry  Ford  printed  in  the  New  York  World,  Wednesday,  April  12, 
a  full-page  advertisement  under  the  head  "  Humanity  and  Sanity,"  in 
which  he  attacks  everyone  who  is  trying  to  safeguard  this  country  against 
invasion  and  the  red  hell  of  war,  and  I  am  one  of  those  against  whom  he 
delivers  a  broadside  of  misrepresentation  and  abuse. 

But  I  am  in  good  company.  Colonel  Robert  M.  Thompson,  the  Navy 
League,  munition  makers  in  general,  and  armor-plate  makers  in  par- 
ticular, have  also  been  smitten  with  the  mailed  fist  of  this  notoriously 
pugnacious  pacifist. 

BY  SLANDERING  INDUSTRY 

To  bolster  his  statements,  Mr.  Ford  quotes  two  persons  who  have 
postured  before  the  public  for  many  years  as  soldiers,  but  who  have  been 
pacifists  always,  in  war  and  in  peace,  one  of  which  men  wanted  to  put 
handcuffs  on  the  wrists  and  shackles  on  the  ankles  of  General  Lee,  and  he 
actually  did  manacle  and  weigh  down  Jefferson  Davis  with  chains.  He 
quotes  some  Congressmen  who  have  succeeded  in  getting  into  the  limelight 
of  notoriety  mainly  by  arraigning  leaders  of  American  industry. 

Two  of  his  witnesses  state,  in  substance,  that  our  coast  fortifications 
are  sufficient,  and  the  most  efficient  in  the  world.  Another  states  that 
the  guns  of  our  ships  are  distinctly  superior  to  all  others,  and  as  evidence 
that  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  oceans  are  effectual  barriers  against  invasion, 
Mr.  Ford  quotes  the  remark  of  that  good  fellow,  Lew  Dockstader,  who 
said  in  a  joke  that  the  two  best  friends  of  the  United  States  are  the 
Atlantic  Ocean  and  the  Pacific  Ocean. 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  141 

He  quotes  from  others  that  our  navy  is  second  to  none  except  Eng- 
iand.     What  are  the  facts? 


LARGEST  GUNS  OF  FOUKTEEN-INCH  CALIBER 

General  Wood  said,  in  the  hearing  before  the  Committee  on  Military 
Affairs,  House  of  Representatives,  January  27,  1916,  that  Germany  could 
land  250,000  men  on  our  Atlantic  seaboard  in  fifteen  days,  once  they 
secured  control  of  the  sea,  which  he  believes  could  be  accomplished  within 
from  thirty  to  sixty  days;  that  they  could  then  capture  the  entire 
munitions  area  of  the  United  States  between  Boston  and  Baltimore  and 
thereafter  that  we  could  do  nothing — that  we  should  have  to  pay  the 
invader  any  indemnity  he  might  ask  to  get  him  to  leave  the  country. 

General  Wood  also  says  that  our  navy  is  fourth  in  power.  Admiral 
Fletcher,  Admiral  Fiske,  Admiral  Knight,  President  of  the  Naval  War 
College,  and  many  others,  say  the  same  thing.  Consequently,  our  navy 
could  offer  no  protection  against  such  a  navy  as  that  of  England  or 
Germany. 

It  is  false  that  our  ships  carry  as  powerful  guns  as  Germany  or 
Great  Britain.  Our  largest  guns  are  fourteen-inch  caliber.  Great  Britain 
has  several  ships  armed  with  fifteen-inch  guns,  and  Germany  is  arming 
ships  with  seventeen-inch  guns. 

Regarding  coast  fortifications,  we  have  no  coast  fortifications.  We 
have  only  harbor  fortifications.  Our  coast  is  undefended. 

All  our  best  naval  and  military  authorities  hold  the  opinion  that  for 
all  practical  purposes  this  country  is  absolutely  defenseless — that  our 
fleet  could  be  easily  destroyed  and  the  country  invaded  and  placed  under 
tribute. 

Whom  shall  we  take  for  our  guide?  The  man  afflicted  with  appen- 
dicitis does  not  consult  his  pastry  cook,  but,  on  the  contrary,  consults  an 
educated  and  experienced  physician  and  surgeon.  He  does  not  employ  the 
plumber  for  child-birth.  The  business  man  who  has  a  case  to  be  pleaded 
in  court  does  not  employ  his  parson,  but,  on  the  contrary,  hires  a  good, 
lawyer.  No  one  would  think  of  employing  his  lawyer  or  physician  to 
act  as  architect  to  design  a  house  for  him,  or  as  an  engineer  to  survey  a 
farm,  build  a  bridge,  or  construct  a  fighting-ship.  This  is  an  age  of 
specialists.  No  one  can  hope  to  succeed  greatly  in  any  line  unless  he 
specializes  in  that  line,  and  no  one  can  be  guided  correctly  in  any  special 
line  unless  he  is  guided  by  the  judgment  of  specialists. 

MUST  BE  GUIDED  BY  EXPERTS 

The  same  thing  holds  true  with  the  United  States  Government. 
Unless  this  government  is  guided  by  its  specialists,  guided  in  military 
matters  by  its  military  men,  in  naval  matters  by  its  navy  men,  in  industrial 
matters  by  its  business  men,  in  legal  matters  by  its  lawyers,  in  statesman- 
ship by  its  statesmen,  then  this  government  is  as  certain  to  steer  straight 
for  disaster  as  would  an  individual  who  should  follow  the  same  method. 

It  is  strange  indeed  that  Henry  Ford,  who  has  made  his  money 
through  specialization,  should  advocate  that  the  United  States  Government 
ignore  the  counsel  of  its  experts. 

Mr.  Ford  asserts  that  the  movement  for  national  defense  is  one  that 
has  been  supported  and  is  being  pushed  by  munition  manufacturers  in 


142  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

their  own  interest,  that  is  to  say,  from  ulterior  motives — for  personal 
profit. 

It  is  a  fact  which  the  pacifists  charge  and  munition  makers  admit, 
that  war  is  far  more  favorable  to  the  making  of  profits  by  munition  makers 
than  is  peace.  The  facts  of  history  prove  this.  American  munition  makers 
made  more  money  during  the  Civil  War  than  they  made  during  the  long 
period  of  peace  which  followed  until  the  outbreak  of  the  Spanish  War,  and 
during  the  Spanish  War  they  made  more  money  than  they  made  between 
the  close  of  that  war  and  the  outbreak  of  the  European  War;  and  during 
the  past  year  and  a  half  they  have  made  more  money  than  they  would  be 
able  to  make  in  fifty  years  of  peace,  even  should  this  country  buy  suf- 
ficient munitions  from  them  for  adequate  preparation. 

In  time  of  peace,  government  specifications  are  very  exacting,  and  the 
margin  of  profit  is  very  small,  whereas  in  time  of  war  the  government 
is  glad  to  take  anything  it  can  get  and  to  pay  whatever  extravagant  price 
may  be  necessary  to  get  it. 

The  sole  reason  why  the  pacifists  charge  munition  makers  with 
ulterior  motives  in  promoting  preparedness  is  that  they  believe  that  pre- 
paredness promotes  war  instead  of  promoting  peace,  while  the  exact 
opposite  is  the  truth. 

WOULD  ACTUALLY  PROMOTE  WAR 

The  moment  it  is  admitted  that  preparedness  promotes  peace  and 
insures  against  war,  then,  at  that  same  moment  it  must  be  admitted  that 
the  promotion  of  preparedness  by  munition  makers  cannot  by  any  possi- 
bility be  from  ulterior  motives,  that  is  to  say,  with  a  view  to  increasing 
the  market  and  profit  for  their  wares.  If  the  object  of  the  munition 
makers  were  merely  profit,  they  would  finance  the  propaganda  of  the 
pacifists  and  try  to  defeat  preparedness,  for  in  that  way  they  would 
actually  promote  war. 

Further,  it  must  be  remembered  that  not  only  explosives  and  guns 
and  other  killing  instruments  are  munitions  of  war,  but  also  are  all 
supplies  of  both  army  and  navy  of  every  name  and  nature. 

Wheat  is  as  much  a  munition  of  war  as  gunpowder.  The  spade,  the 
pick  and  the  plow  are  as  much  munitions  of  war  as  are  machine  guns,  field 
cannon  and  shrapnel.  The  tools  that  the  armies  use  in  digging  trenches 
are  as  much  war  munitions  as  are  the  tools  they  employ  in  defending 
the  trenches.  Automobiles,  mules,  horses,  are  all  munitions  of  war.  All 
kinds  of  farm  produce  are  as  much  munitions  of  war  as  are  dynamite  and 
gunpowder.  The  aeroplane,  the  telephone,  the  wireless,  clothing,  blankets 
and  lumber  are  all  munitions  of  war. 

Therefore,  if  those  interested  in  the  manufacture  of  war  munitions 
are  breeders  of  war,  then  all  those  interested  in  the  profits  made  by 
producing  the  above-mentioned  articles  are  equally  breeders  of  war.  The 
manufacturers  of  firearms  and  gunpowder  do  not  make  any  more  profit 
out  of  war  through  the  supply  of  munitions  ofjwar  than  do  the  farmers. 

FARMERS  AS  WAR  BREEDERS 

It  is  childish,  and  more  than  childish — it  is  foolish — to  argue  that 
munition  makers  are  likely  to  foster  war  for  profit.  Does  anyone  imagine 
for  a  moment  that  the  farmers  throughout  the  country  would  foster  war 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  143 

because  they  could  get  a  better  price  for  their  wheat?  Not  a  bit  of  it. 
And  yet,  as  the  farmers  outnumber  the  munition  makers  a  thousand  to 
one,  if  the  reasoning  of  the  pacifists  were  true,  the  farmers  would  become 
far  greater  war  breeders  than  the  armament  makers. 

I  quote  the  following  paragraphs  from  a  speech  made  at  Broadway 
Tabernacle,  New  York,  on  February  8,  1916,  by  Rev.  William  Carter,  D.D., 
pastor  of  Throop  Avenue  Presbyterian  Church,  Brooklyn. 

"As  to  the  matter  of  self-interest  on  the  part  of  the 
military  and  naval  men  and  the  arms  and  munitions  manu- 
facturers, let  me  say  that  it  is  one  of  the  weakest  as  well  as 
the  most  prejudiced  and  unfair  arguments  that  the  pacifist 
has  ever  advanced  in  this  whole  controversy.  To  dare  to  say 
that  men,  because  they  make  a  profit  out  of  war,  would 
therefore  plunge  whole  nations  into  it  without  cause,  is  one 
of  the  most  un-Christian  as  well  as  illogical  arguments  that 
the  world  has  ever  heard." 

SOLDIERS'  HORROR  OF  WAR 

"As  soon  might  we  say  that  the  undertaker  would  em- 
ploy a  poisoner,  a  murderer  and  a  thug  to  increase  his  busi- 
ness, or  that  the  doctor  would  sow  the  seeds  of  disease  rather 
than  health  among  his  patients  that  he  might  profit  more  by 
his  practice!  Soldiers  themselves,  such  as  Sherman,  Grant, 
Chinese  Gordon  and  many  others,  have  always  expressed  their 
horror  of  war,  and  since  these  men  are  taking  their  lives  in 
their  own  hands  in  entering  war,  we  certainly  ought  to  give 
them  the  Christian  credit  and  fraternal  trust  that  they  are 
doing  it  not  for  personal  aggrandizement,  but  for  the  good  of 
the  nation  which  they  love.  Arms  and  munitions  manufac- 
turers also,  though  profiting  from  the  dread  disease  of  war, 
are,  profiting  no  more  than  the  doctor  and  the  undertaker 
through  the  evils  of  bodily  disease  in  their  lines  of  work,  and 
are  certainly  no  more  to  be  accused  of  fratricide,  parricide 
and  devilish  massacre.  The  one  thought  is  just  as  illogical 
as  the  other  and,  as  I  have  said,  unworthy  to  be  placed  in  the 
arguments  of  our  Pacifist  friends." 

Is  Henry  Ford  playing  the  fool  or  knave? 

The  Bible  says  of  men,  "  By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them." 

If  Henry  Ford  should  succeed,  by  his  propaganda  against  national 
defense,  in  defeating  or  in  greatly  impeding  that  movement,  and  if  he 
were  to  be  judged  by  the  harm  he  would  do,  he  would  be  one  of  the  most 
evil  monsters  that  ever  afflicted  mankind.  He  would  bring  a  greater 
calamity  upon  this  country  than  that  which  Attila  the  Hun  brought  upon 
Europe. 

As  a  traitor  to  his  country,  in  my  opinion,  he  would  make  Benedict 
Arnold  look  like  a  patriot.  I  have  always  understood  that  patriotism 
meant  duty  done  for  one's  country,  and  that  treason  meant  effort  directed 
against  one's  country. 

Any  American  who  prevails  upon  our  soldiers  to  desert  or  who  spikes 


144  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

a  gun,  or  betrays  the  country  to  an  enemy,  or  aids  an  enemy  in  any  way 
successfully  to  invade  tkis  country  is  guilty  of  high  treason. 


EFFECT  is  THE  SAME 

Things  which  are  equal  to  the  same  thing  are  equal  to  each  other,  and 
any  man  who  prevails  upon  men  not  to  enlist  in  the  American  army  does 
the  same  thing  as  though  he  should  prevail  upon  enlisted  men  to  desert. 
He  who  by  a  public  propaganda  succeeds  in  preventing  a  single  gun  from 
being  built  for  national  defense  commits  the  same  crime  as  though  he 
should  spike  a  gun  already  built,  for  the  effect  is  the  same.  He  who  tries 
to  get  this  country  to  disarm,  or  who  tries  to  prevent  it  from  arming,  is 
for  all  practical  purposes  doing  a  thing  that  makes  him  as  much  a  traitor 
as  though  he  should  in  time  of  war  add  to  the  armed  equipment  of  an  enemy, 
and  any  man  who  makes  it  easier  for  an  enemy  to  invade  this  country  will 
be  in  part  responsible  for  the  invasion  should  it  come. 

Let  us  look  at  this  matter  in  yet  another  way:  Let  us  suppose,  for 
argument's  sake,  that  Henry  Ford  should  succeed  in  his  efforts  to  prevent 
this  country  from  preparing  for  defense.  The  success  of  his  efforts  would 
render  war  inevitable;  it  would  make  invasion  certain,  whereas  if  this 
country  should  adequately  arm  against  invasion  it  would  make  it  absolutely 
certain  that  there  would  be  no  invasion.  Consequently,  in  my  opinion, 
Henry  Ford  would  be  responsible  for  the  invasion,  and  for  all  its  evil 
results. 

GUILTY  OF  MURDER 

If  this  country  should  be  invaded  as  a  result  of  his  propaganda,  at 
least  a  million  of  the  finest  men  in  the  land,  the  flower  of  the  country, 
would  be  sacrificed  on  the  battlefield,  and  Henry  Ford  would  be  guilty  of 
their  murder. 

If  he  were  to  stand  ten  hours  a  day,  with  a  shoulder-gun,  and  shoot 
American  young  men,  as  many  as  he  could,  at  the  rate  of  twenty  a  minute, 
which  w@uld  be  rapid  work,  it  would  take  him  three  months  to  kill  as 
many  young  men  as  he  is  now  by  his  advocacy  of  unpreparedness  trying 
to  lead  to  slaughter,  and  who  will  be  slaughtered,  unless  I,  and  others  like 
me,  succeed  in  preventing  him  from  doing  it,  by  arousing  the  nation. 

I  hold  that  every  man  has  a  God-pleasing  right  to  defend  his  own 
life  and  the  lives  of  those  dear  to  him.  When  the  American  pioneer  stood 
at  the  loophole  in  his  log  cabin  and  shot  red  Indians,  while  his  wife  loaded 
his  guns,  and  his  little  children  stood  around  him  screaming  in  terror,  he 
had  a  perfect  right  under  God  to  defend  the  lives  of  himself  and  his  family. 

His  guns  were  life-saving  instruments,  and  the  life-saving  efficiency 
of  any  military  weapon  is  exactly  proportionate  to  the  extent  that  it 
enables  its  user  to  save  the  lives  of  himself  and  his  friends  by  killing  his 
enemies. 

A  nation  is  only  a  larger  family.  The  ethics  of  self-defense  are  the 
same  whether  applied  to  individual  self-defense  or  national  self-defense, 
and  the  function  of  a  city  police  force  is  identical  with  the  function  of  an 
army  and  a  navy.  Mr.  Ford,  in  his  advertisement,  actually  refers  to  our 
army  in  Mexico  as  a  police  force  doing  police  duty. 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  145 


To  DEFEND  His  FAMILY 

The  United  States  today  is  a  peaceful  nation  in  a  world  where  there 
are  savage  and  predatory  nations  armed  to  the  teeth,  and  to  advocate  that 
this  country  should  remain  defenseless  under  such  circumstances  is  exactly 
like  recommending  that  the  American  pioneer  should  not  have  had  guns 
to  defend  his  family  against  the  red  Indians,  but  should  have  allowed  his 
home  to  be  plundered,  and  his  family  captured  and  scalped  or  burned  at 
the  stake.  It  is  exactly  like  recommending  that  a  city  should  do  without 
its  police  force. 

Those  pacifists  who  recommend  that  this  country  go  unprepared 
should  first  try  the  experiment  on  a  small  scale.  Let  some  city  in  the 
Union,  the  majority  of  whose  voters  are  pacifists,  disband  its  police  force 
and  see  how  the  thing  will  work  on  a  small  scale  before  trying  it  on 
a  large  scale  with  the  entire  country. 

Let  us  suppose,  for  example,  that  a  city  like  Detroit,  Mr.  Ford's  home 
town,  should  disband  its  police  force,  and  depend  for  its  security  entirely 
upon  the  innate  spirit  of  good-fellowship  and  brotherly  love  of  its  citizens. 
How  would  it  work  out?  Chaos  would  reign  in  a  day!  Thieves,  cutthroats 
and  burglars  would  immediately  rise  up  in  large  numbers.  No  life  would 
be  safe  and  no  home  secure  for  a  moment.  No  property  would  be  safe 
anywhere.  Stores  would  be  broken  into  indiscriminately  and  plundered. 

LIKENED  TO  POLICE  FORCE 

We  are  so  dependent  upon  our  police  force  for  our  security  that  we 
have  come  to  look  upon  it  as  an  absolute  indispensable  adjunct  of  every 
society  where  large  numbers  of  people  are  congregated.  No  one  would 
for  a  moment  think  of  doing  away  with  our  policemen.  Thus,  we  are 
able  to  see  in  a  small  and  simple  way  why  we  should  defend  the  country 
in  a  larger  way.  Consequently,  it  is  most  evident  that  we  should  have 
a  large  police  force  to  defend  the  nation  just  as  we  have  a  small  police 
force  to  defend  the  persons  and  property  of  the  inhabitants  of  our  cities. 

The  pacifists  argue  that  if  we  were  to  prepare  sufficiently  to  defend 
ourselves  against  the  great  military  nations  of  the  world,  we  should  also 
become  a  military  despotism — we  should  become  aggressors  and  attack 
and  plunder  other  nations. 

If  it  be  actually  true  that  if  we  were  adequately  armed  for  national 
defense,  we  should  be  tempted  to  use  our  arms  against  other  nations  not 
so  well  prepared  as  we,  this  is  the  strongest  possible  evidence  that  if  we 
do  not  prepare,  then  those  nations  that  are  now  better  armed  than  we  are 
will  attack  us  if  we  do  not  prepare  for  defense. 

I  once  saw  in  a  certain  city  a  wagon  load  of  gold  being  moved 
through  the  streets  to  a  safe-deposit  vault,  and  it  was  guarded  in  transit 
by  several  armed  men.  Why  did  they  guard  that  treasure  with  guns? 
Does  Henry  Ford  recommend  that  the  city  of  Detroit  do  without  its,  police 
force  ?  Where  does  he  keep  his  securities, — on  his  doorstep  or  in  a  safe- 
deposit  vault  behind  strong  steel  doors? 

And  yet  he  advocates  that  this  country,  with  the  greatest  treasures 
in  the  world,  should  leave  those  treasures  exposed  without  any  protection 
whatsoever. 


146  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

THE  BATTLE  CRY  OF  PEACE 

What  you  saw  in  that  motion  picture,  "The  Battle  Cry  of  Peace" 
which  he  so  eloquently  condemns,  is  going  to  happen  in  your  home  unless 
you  skulk  away,  and  it  is  going  to  happen  in  the  homes  of  thousands  of 
others  who  cannot  skulk  away,  and  the  male  members  of  the  family  will 
be  held  up  with  guns  or  triced  up  by  the  thumbs  and  made  unwilling 
witnesses  of  the  orgies. 

Exactly  these  things  have  happened  and  are  happening  in  Europe 
today,  and  they  have  always  happened  as  the  common  accompaniment 
of  war. 

This  country  is  certain  to  be  invaded  if  Henry  Ford's  propaganda 
can  bring  it  about.  It  is  certain  to  be  invaded  and  very  soon,  unless  we 
prepare  for  defense,  and  when  that  invasion  comes,  thousands  of  persons 
who  read  this  statement  are  destined  to  hear  the  knock  of  the  sword 
hilt  on  their  door,  and  the  agonized  father,  whose  wife  and  daughters  cling 
to  him  in  terror  for  the  protection  he  can  no  longer  afford,  will  be  torn 
from  their  arms.  These  are  the  visitors  that  Henry  Ford  is  inviting  into 
the  American  home  by  the  puerile  advocacy  of  pacification. 

I  quote  the  following  from  "  Ford  Methods  and  The  Ford  Shops," 
p.  16:— 

".  .  .  he  is  absolutely  sure  he  is  right  in  every  wish, 
impulse  and  fancy. 

"...  Henry  Ford,  .  .  .  lives  a  life  of  absolute  freedom 
himself,  following  his  own  desires,  fancies  and  impulses  with 
utter  and  absolute  disregard  of  the  opinions  of  others. 

"  CARES  NOTHING  FOR  HISTORY 

"  As,  to  literature,  Mr.  Ford  may  be  said  to  have  no  lit- 
erary tastes  or  inclinations  whatever.  He  cares  nothing  for 
fiction,  nothing  for  poetry,  nothing  for  history  and  very  little 
for  scientific  work.  He  abhors  letters  and  will  not  read  a 
two-page  letter  through  if  he  can  possibly  avoid  it. 

"  Ford  himself  has  no  premeditations,  but  acts  wholly 
upon  inspiration." 

How  like  Attila  is  Henry  Ford.  Attila  had  no  use  for  art;  he  never 
read  letters;  he  hated  music;  never  cared  for  history;  ignored  the  opinions 
of  others:  was  phenomenally  egotistical  and  intolerant  of  the  opinions 
of  others. 

Here  is  a  man  who  prides  himself  on  knowing  nothing  of  history, 
nothing  of  the  bloody  story  of  mankind,  nothing  of  the  interminable 
struggle  of  the  nations,  nothing  of  these  great  precedents  by  which  we 
should  be  guided,  and  yet  who  sets  himself  up  to  guide  the  policy  of  the 
people  of  this  country  concerning  the  most  vital  issue  before  the  nation. 

Mr.  Ford  makes  the  accusation  that  my  book,  "  Defenseless  America," 
and  the  moving  picture,  "The  Battle  Cry  of  Peace,"  founded  upon  it, 
were  merely  advance  notices  in  order  to  make  a  market  for  war  munitions. 

To  bear  him  out,  he  makes  a  quotation  from  the  New  York  World 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  147 

of  November  27,  1915,  the  matter  of  which  was  copied  from  a  St.  Louis 
paper.  I  can  do  no  better,  I  think,  than  to  give  here  the  letter  I  wrote 
in  answer  to  the  article  in  the  New  York  World.  The  same  letter  was 
sent  to  the  St.  Louis  paper,  and  the  editor  was  courteous  enough  to  print 
it  in  full.  The  New  York  World  did  not  publish  my  letter: 

November  27th,  1915. 

To  the  Editor  of  the  New  York  World,  Pulitzer  Building,  New  York,  N.  Y. 
Sir: — In  today's  World  mention  is  made  of  my  recent  speech  on  prepared- 
ness in  St.  Louis,  and  the  statement  is  made  that  certain  members  of  the 
Committee  of  One  Hundred,  appointed  by  Mayor  Kiel  at  the  instance  of 
the  National  Security  League,  have  resigned  on  account  of  having  seen 
an  advertisement  in  the  papers  of  Maxim  Munitions  stock.  It  is  stated 
that  those  gentlemen  suspected  me  of  ulterior  motives  in  advocating 
preparedness. 

I  have  been  expecting  exactly  this  sort  of  an  attack;  and  I  expect 
to  receive  very  severe  criticisms  for  continuing  to  work  for  preparedness 
after  becoming  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  war  munitions. 

But  the  pacifists  are  not  going  to  find  me,  like  Uncle  Sam,  unpre- 
pared. I  most  cordially  invite  criticism. 

I  have  been  working  to  rouse  this  country  to  its  peril  for  the  past 
twenty-five  years.  During  that  time  I  have  not  been  actively  engaged  in 
the  manufacture  of  war  munitions,  and  although  I  have  invented  many 
war  devices  and  materials,  and  have  acted  as  consulting  engineer  to  others 
who  manufacture  them,  still,  I  have  had  no  pecuniary  interest  whatsoever 
in  their  manufacture  and  sale. 

PAY  WELL  FOB  SERVICE 

Recently,  however,  I  have  actually  gone  into  the  business  of  their 
manufacture.  I  have  nothing  to  conceal.  I  shall  gladly  welcome  any 
profits  which  may  come  to  me  from  the  sale  of  war  munitions  to  the 
belligerent  nations,  or  from  the  sale  of  war  munitions  to  the  United  States 
Government,  if  we  happen  to  be  so  fortunate  as  to  get  any  orders  from 
this  Government.  If  there  is  anything  in  this  world  for  which  a  man 
should  be  paid,  and  paid  well,  it  is  for  service  to  his  country.  If  there 
is  any  business  in  this  world  that  should  receive  high  honor,  it  is  the 
manufacture  of  munitions  of  war  for  one's  country,  to  save  it  from  the 
humiliation  of  defeat. 

But  there  is  an  aspect  of  this  business  not  so  favorable  to  profits 
as  the  pacifists  seem  to  think.  It  would  be  very  foolish  indeed  for  manu- 
facturers of  war  munitions  to  urge  America  to  prepare,  if  their  object 
were  mainly  to  make  the  most  money,  for  should  war  come  upon  us  in  our 
state  of  unpreparedness  the  American  Government  would  have  to  do  what 
the  English  and  French  and  Russian  governments  have  had  to  do  since 
the  outbreak  of  the  European  war.  They  have  to  grab  at  anything  they 
can  get,  and  welcome  it  and  pay  any  sort  of  a  fancy  price  for  it. 

Those  who  are  making  munitions  for  the  Allies  are  getting  many 
times  the  profit  that  they  would  get  had  th£y  made  them  in  time  of 
peace.  During  the  Spanish  War  this  Government  paid  fancy  prices  for 
all  kinds  of  old  junk.  Such  is  the  penalty  of  not  buying  munitions  of 
war  and  war  equipment  in  time  of  peace. 


148  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

If  war  should  come  upon  this  country  in  the  near  future  I  should 
make  much  more  money  through  the  country  being  unprepared  than  I 
would  if  it  .were  prepared.  I  should  be  able  to  make  more  money  in  one 
year,  because  of  the  country's  unpreparedness,  than  I  would  in  ten  years 
if  the  country  were  prepared,  for  if  the  country  were  amply  prepared  it 
would  not  have  to  pay  fancy  prices  and  big  profits  to  manufacturers  in 
time  of  war. 

WEALTH  FOE  MUNITION  MAKERS 

Some  of  the  American  manufacturers  have  made  as  much  money  during 
the  present  European  conflict  as  they  would  be  able  to  make  from  this 
Government  in  fifty  years  if  we  were  amply  prepared. 

Regarding  those  advertisements  in  the  St.  Louis  papers,  I  had  nothing 
to  do  with  them.  I  understand  that  a  certain  amount  of  stock  of  the 
Maxim  Munitions  Corporation  was  sold  to  some  New  York  financiers,  and 
the  Maxim  Munitions  Corporation  has  received  all  that  it  can  receive 
from  the  sale  of  that  bunch  of  stock;  and  if  the  syndicate  that  bought 
it  puts  it  on  sale  and  makes  a  big  profit,  that  big  profit  does  not  come 
to  the  Maxim  Munitions  Corporation.  The  Maxim  Munitions  Corporation 
is  not  advertising  any  of  its  stock  for  sale. 

During  the  past  twenty  years  I  have  tried  to  locate  some  of  the 
munitions  manufacturers  who,  as  the  pacifists  claim,  are  financing  the 
cause  of  American  preparedness,  but  I  have  been  unable  to  find  one  of 
them.  As  far  as  I  know,  I  am  the  only  one  who  has  the  moral  courage 
to  announce  from  the  housetops  that  he  is  serving  his  country  in  two 
ways — by  helping  to  build  up  its  equipment  for  making  munitions  of 
war,  and  by  getting  ready  to  supply  munitions  of  war  to  the  Government 
when  the  Government  shall  want  them,  and  also  by  using  a  part  of  his 
profits,  if  he  gets  any,  to  further  help  the  cause  of  national  defense. 

During  the  year  preceding  the  incorporation  of  the  Maxim  Munitions 
Corporation  I  spent  nine-tenths  of  my  time  and  a  lot  of  money  for  the 
cause  of  national  defense. 

At  that  time  the  pacifists  did  not  have  any  excuse  for  charging  me 
with  ulterior  motives. 

I  have  now  given  them  the  opportunity  they  desire,  and  I  am  standing 
right  out  in  the  open,  and  inviting  them  to  the  assault. 

A  man  may  have  a  personal  financial  interest  in  a  thing  and  still  be 
honest  about  that  thing.  Our  army  and  navy  men  have  been  charged  with 
ulterior  motives  in  trying  to  get  this  country  to  prepare.  They  have 
been  charged  with  wanting  to  increase  their  salaries  and  to  gain  pro- 
motion. All  of  these  charges  are  utterly  false,  as  I  know  to  a  certainty. 

As  Elihu  Root  said  in  a  speech .  some  time  ago,  the  great  business 
interests  of  this  country  have  been  disqualified  to  give  evidence  on  business 
affairs  for  the  reason  that  they  are  persons  in  interest.  Could  anything 
be  more  utterly  absurd?  Could  anything  more  tend  to  the  disintegration 
of  the  business  welfare  of  this  country? 

No  one  seems  to  have*  noticed  that  the  pacifists  who  are  making  the 
loud  shouting  are  in  the  pay  of  the  Carnegie  Peace  Foundation.  Are  not 
they  open  also  to  the  charge  of  ulterior  motives  in  their  promulgation  of 
pacifism,  and  in  their  attempts  to  defeat  national  defense? 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  149 

SAVE  FOR  A  CONSIDERATION 

Is  it  any  worse  for  a  man  to  have  ulterior  motives  for  urging  pre- 
paredness than  it  is  for  him  to  have  the  same  kind  of  motives  for  defeating 
preparedness  ? 

It  seems  to  me  far  more  patriotic  and  honorable  to  try  to  save  one's 
country  for  a  consideration,  than  to  invite  its  destruction  for  a  con- 
sideration. 

The  pacifists  pretend  to  know  of  a  lot  of  manufacturers  of  munitions  of 
war  who  are  backing  the  cause  of  national  defense.  I  would  be  glad  to 
get  the  name  and  address  of  some  of  them.  I  would  like  to  get  them  to 
help  me  in  my  work  of  saving  the  nation. 

What  of  it,  even  if  one  be  working  for  preparedness  from  ulterior 
motives?  If  it  is  a  good  thing  to  do,  he  is  doing  a  good  work  whatever  his 
motives  may  be.  A  man's  motives  may  be  bad  even  in  the  doing  of  good 
work,  in  which  case  it  is  the  work  that  we  should  look  at  and  not  the 
motives. 

One  may  endow  an  orphan  asylum,  or  a  library,  or  a  hospital,  merely 
to  get  into  the  spotlight  of  publicity.  His  motive  is  not  commendable, 
but  his  work  is. 

Assuming,  for  argument's  sake,  that  there  are  certain  war  munitions 
manufacturers  who  earnestly  believe  that  by  promoting  preparedness  they 
would  foster  the  sale  of  their  wares — even  then,  would  their  action  be 
more  culpable  than  that  of  the  pacifists  who  are  working  to  defeat  national 
defense  for  a  money  consideration?  Their  motives  may  be  very  excellent, 
but  if  what  they  are  doing  is  wrong,  the  excellence  of  their  motives  does 
not  lessen  the  banefulness  of  their  work. 

The  pacifists  seem  to  believe  that  the  discovery  of  room  for  a  motive 
for  a  crime  establishes  the  motive  and  proves  the  crime.  John  H.  Gundlach, 
former  president  of  the  City  Council  of  St.  Louis,  is  reported  as  saying 
that: 

"  If  the  activities  of  the  National  Security  League,  at  the 
instance  of  which  the  committee  wTas  appointed,  the  appear- 
ance of  Mr.  Maxim  and  the  promulgation  of  the  advertise- 
ments can  be  connected,  it  is  treasonable." 


TREASON'S  DIFFERENT  PHASES 

Allow  me  to  inquire  what  law  there  is  to  back  Mr.  Gundlach's  state- 
ment about  the  matter  being  treasonable,  even  though  the  connection  could 
be  established?  Unfortunately,  there  is  no  connection,  otherwise  I  should 
be  very  glad  to  see  where  the  treasonableness  would  come  in.  Certainly, 
when  a  man  goes  into  business,  whether  it  be  the  manufacture  of  war 
munitions  or  anything  else,  he  does  not  by  that  act  disqualify  himself  to 
serve  his  country  afterwards. 

It  is  time  that  the  people  of  this  country  should  know  where 
patriotism  ends  and  treason  begins.  I  have  always  thought  a  patriot  was 
a  man  who  tried  to  save  his  country  when  in  peril,  and  that  a  traitor 
was  one  who  was  doing  an  exactly  opposite  thing. 

If    war    should    come    upon    this    country    in    its    present    state    of 


150  LEADING  OPINIONS  BOTH  FOR 

defenselessness,  at  least  a  million  of  American  young  men,  the  flower  of 
the  country,  would  pay  the  penalty  of  our  unpreparedness.  If  it  be 
wrong  to  try  to  save  these  lives,  then  I  am  stone  blind  to  good  and  evil. 
In  the  words  of  Patrick  Henry,  "  If  that  be  treason,  make  the  most  of 
it."  If  it  be  not  wrong  for  pacifists  to  defeat  preparedness,  and  cause 
the  sacrifice  of  a  million  American  lives  by  their  folly,  or  through  ulterior 
motives,  then  again  I  am  stone  blind  to  good  and  evil. 

It  is  strange  that  anyone  could  be  so  blind  as  not  to  see  and  to 
understand  that  the  motive  for  a  beneficent  action  does  not  matter — that 
it  is  the  beneficence  of  the  act  entirely  that  matters.  Some  of  the  greatest 
criminals  in  the  history  of  the  world,  and  those  who  have  done  the  greatest 
harm,  have  been  persons  actuated  by  most  altruistic  and  unselfish  motives, 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  men  actuated  by  selfish  motives  have  often  done 
vast  good. 

Turn  off  the  limelight,  and  extinguish  the  spotlight,  and  eliminate 
pecuniary  reward,  and  I  do  not  believe  that  there  would  be  a  single  pacifist 
left  in  action. 

Respectfully, 

HUDSON  MAXIM. 

The  pacifists  believe  that  the  more  deadly  and  destructive  is  an  imple- 
ment of  war,  the  larger  the  number  of  persons  that  may  be  killed  by  it, 
while  the  exact  opposite  is  the  truth. 

The  quick-firing  gun  is  the  greatest  life-saving  instrument  ever  in- 
vented, because  with  every  improvement  in  the  range  and  rapidity  of  fire 
of  guns,  armies  fight  just  so  much  farther  apart  as  may  be  necessary  to 
balance  its  added  effectiveness. 

MANY  TIMES  AS  MANY  MEN 

Before  the  introduction  of  firearms,  fighting  was  done  at  short  range, 
and  was  correspondingly  more  deadly.  Many  times  as  many  men,  for  the 
numbers  engaged,  were  killed  in  wars  with  spears,  battle-axes  and  tke 
short  sword  as  are  now  killed  in  battle  with  all  our  modern  enginery  of 
death  and  destruction.  With  the  introduction  of  improved  machinery  of 
war,  fighting  is  necessarily  done  more  by  machinery  and  less  by  hand,  so 
that  in  battle  life-destroying  machinery  becomes  labor-saving  machinery, 
and  consequently  life-saving  machinery. 

Nations  are  sure  to  fight  to  accomplish  what  they  believe  to  be  right, 
and  they  conceive  to  be  right  always  what  is  best  for  themselves,  and  they 
will  fight  with  whatever  weapons  they  have,  and  the  simpler  and  more 
primitive  the  weapons  are,  the  greater  the  slaughter.  Therefore,  if  all  the 
nations  of  the  world  were  to  disarm  and  actually  to  forge  their  swords 
into  plowshares,  and  their  spears  into  pruning-hooks,  and  to  scrap  all 
their  guns  and  other  implements  of  war,  that  very  act  would  arm  them 
with  far  more  deadly  weapons  than  they  now  possess.  The  pruning-hook 
would  be  a  far  more  deadly  weapon  than  the  quick-firing  gun,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  farmer's  ax  and  pitchfork. 

Had  the  vast  armies  of  Europe  in  the  present  war  been  armed  with 
only  agricultural  implements,  the  actual  slaughter  would  have  been  ten 
times  as  great  for  the  time  and  numbers  engaged.  Therefore,  disarmament 
would  not  be  a  measure  in  the  interest  of  saving  life — it  would  be  a 


AND  AGAINST  NATIONAL  DEFENSE  151 

measure  that  would,  in  the  event  of  war,  result  in  enormously  increased 
sacrifice  of  life. 

Never  in  all  history  have  such  vast  numbers  of  men  been  drawn  up 
in  line  of  battle  as  in  the  present  great  European  War.  Never  have  they 
been  so  scientifically  armed,  and,  consequently,  never  have  they,  for  the 
numbers  engaged,  killed  so  few. 

A  STRANGE  PARADOX 

As  nations  are  bound  to  fight,  it  is  far  more  merciful  that  they  should 
be  armed  to  the  teeth,  but  it  is  vastly  more  expensive.  Can  we  not  afford, 
however,  tf)  spend  dollars  instead  of  men  to  kill  our  enemies? 

It  is  a  very  strange  paradox  indeed  that  the  professional  peace- 
propagandists,  who  claim  to  be  actuated  mainly  by  considerations  of 
humanity,  should  advocate  disarmament  and  the  inevitable  reversion  to 
the  old  and  more  deadly  arms  and  methods  of  warfare,  on  account  of  the 
greater  expensiveness  of  warfare  conducted  with  modern  scientific  arms  and 
methods. 

HUDSON  MAXIM. 

April  12,  1916. 


PRAISE  FROM  EDITORS 

No   Serious  Book  Has   Ever  Been  More  Highly   Praised  by   the   Leading 
Newspapers  of  America  than  has  "  Defenseless  America " 

PHILADELPHIA  PUBLIC  LEDGER: 

"A  book  by  an  expert  in  modern  armament  who  writes  with 
graphic  power  what  he  knows  better  than  anyone  in  this  country — a 
solemn  warning." 

NEW  YORK  AMERICAN: 

"  No  book  issued  on  the  subject  marshals  with  equal  skill  so 
great  an  array  of  facts  as  Mr.  Maxim's  volume.  In  the  present  state 
of  national  thought  upon  our  military  and  naval  needs  this  book  is 
most  valuable." 

WASHINGTON  STAR: 

"  In  origin  and  treatment  this  is  a  surpassing  study  whose  sheer 
information,  apart  from  its  personal  conclusions,  is  worth  the  serious 
attention,  not  only  of  the  legislator,  but  of  the  plain  man  behind 
the  lawmaker." 

DETROIT  FREE  PRESS: 

"  Hudson  Maxim  makes  a  call  to  arms  against  war.  Here  is 
an  argument  for  proper  armament  from  a  man  who  not  only  foretold 
the  Japanese  war  and  named  the  victor,  but  also  prophesied  the 
present  conflict  and  by  knowledge  and  study  of  world's  conditions 
knows  what  he  is  talking  about  and  makes  his  warning  timely." 

Los  ANGELES  TIMES: 

"  A  powerful  book  on  an  imminent  and  national  problem  that 
every  thinking  citizen  should  read  with  care." 

BOSTON  TRANSCRIPT: 

"  Shows  how  it  is  safer  for  a  country  like  the  United  States 
with  so  large  a  territory  to  defend,  to  prepare,  so  that  no  foreign 
nation  will  be  anxious  to  try  a  struggle  with  us.  The  peace  of  the 
United  States  will  then  rest  on  a  firm  foundation." 

BALTIMORE  SUN: 

"  The  book  is  brilliantly  written,  with  the  severity  of  one  who 
intensely  desires  to  drive  a  truth  home  and  with  the  assuraace  of 
one  who  feels  his  statistics  unassailable  and  his  arguments  unan- 
swerable. He  is  supported  by  many  witnesses  whose  knowledge  must 
be  respected.  There  is  no  smallness  in  the  writer's  attitude.  He 
appears  to  feel  intensely  his  mission  as  prophet  and  patriot." 

152 


PRAISE  FROM  EDITORS  153 

CLEVELAND  PLAIN  DEALER: 

"  Here  is  a  man,  frankly  interested  in  war,  who  seems  utterly 
honest  in  his  beliefs.  The  book  contains  an  expert  elucidation  of 
the  weaknesses  of  the  American  army  and  navy.  It  has  practical 
suggestions  for  improvement.  It  is,  in  fact,  a  complete  text-book  for 
the  student  of  American  preparedness  or  unpreparedness,  written,  of 
course,  in  a  sincerely  ex  parte  manner." 

BROOKLYN  CITIZEN: 

"  The  book  should  be  read  and  studied  carefully  by  every  lover 
of  his  country." 

LEWISTON  JOURNAL: 

"  '  Defenseless  America '  is  a  ringing  and  insistent  call,  calcu- 
lated to  startle  the  average  American  eut  of  his  peaceful  and  com- 
placent sense  of  security." 
NEW  YORK  PRESS: 

"  The  book  is  interesting — as  interesting  as  a  well-written  and 
absorbing  novel,  only  it  deals  with  vital  facts  that  have  a  bearing 
on  the  lives  and  fortunes  of  everyone  in  this  country." 

THE  OUTLOOK: 

"  We  wish  that  we  could  think  that  those  who  are  opposed  to 
any  preparation  against  war  by  this  country  would  read  and  con- 
sider this  book  of  Mr.  Hudson  Maxim." 

LIFE,  N.  Y.: 

"  One  of  the  early  lumber-camp  tales  ended  with  a  stirring  scene 
in  which  a  big,  sandy-haired  hero,  caught  in  the  path  of  a  bursting 
log  jam,  hurls  his  cap  defiantly  into  the  advancing  wall  of  destruc- 
tion, just  before  it  whelms  him.  Such  a  gesture,  futile  yet  mag- 
nificent, is  suggested  by  Hudson  Maxim's  fiery  appeal  to  the  sleeping 
intelligence  and  lulled  self-interest  of  his  countrymen,  '  Defenseless 
America.'  The  book  contains  a  remorseless  marshaling  of  stern 
facts,  fused  into  prophecy  by  a  sort  of  incandescent  logic.  It  is 
the  first  bold  proclaiming  of  the  bitter  '  civilization '  truths  revealed 
by  the  vast  disillusionment  of  the  war.  And  these  are  here  flung, 
as  the  author  feels,  into  the  face  of  approaching  national  disaster." 

THE  SCIENTIFIC  AMERICAN: 

"  The  scope  of  '  Defenseless  America '  is  so  all-embracing,  that 
the  author  has  given  a  veritable  mine  of  information  upon  the  sub- 
ject of  war  and  war  material.  Mr.  Maxim  is  well  qualified  by  his 
long  and  successful  association,  as  a  practical  and  successful  in- 
ventor, with  the  production  of  the  implements  of  war,  to  write  upon 
the  technical  side  of  the  question;  and  this  he  does  with  a  char^ 
acteristic  force  and  lucidity  which  will  render  the  subject  perfectly 
understandable  and  full  of  fascinating  interest  to  the  average 
layman." 

REVIEW  OF  REVIEWS  : 

"A  graphic  and  effective  presentation  of  facts  revealing  the  de- 
fenseless condition  of  this  country  and  indicating  what  must  be 
done  to  avert  national  humiliation." 


154  PRAISE  FROM  EDITORS 

"THIS    POWERFUL    BOOK    HAS    JARRED    AMERICAN    COMPLA- 
CENCY  AS   NO   OTHER   BOOK   HAS   EVER   DONE" 

From  the  New  York  American 

One  of  the  most  remarkable  men  of  our  time  has  written  a  book — and 
the  book  is  probably  the  most  startling  document  ever  placed  before  the 
American  people.  Its  author  is  Hudson  Maxim,  world-famous  inventor, 
writer  on  many  topics  of  public  interest,  member  of  the  Naval  Advisory 
Board — and  an  American  patriot. 

His  book,  called  "  Defenseless  America,"  has  fallen  among  the  com- 
placent, the  self-satisfied,  the  careless  and  the  indifferent  like  a  seventeen- 
inch  shell. 

It  is  a  pitiless  book — pitiless  in  its  facts,  pitiless  in  its  logic,  piti- 
less in  its  conclusions. 

Mr.  Maxim  knows  what  he  is  writing  about;  he  is  one  of  the  greatest 
authorities  on  military  affairs  in  the  world.  His  book  has  the  cold  steel 
precision  of  truth. 

He  shows  that  all  wars  have  economic  causes,  no  matter  how  they 
are  painted  over  with  sentiment.  And  he  demonstrates  that  one  of  the 
most  urgent  economic  incentives  to  war  that  has  ever  existed  will  be  the 
relative  condition  of  Europe  and  the  United  States  at  the  close  of  the 
Great  War. 

Imagine  the  victors  of  this  gigantic  conflict— Allies  or  Teutons — im- 
poverished in  money  and  resources,  with  the  most  colossal  public  debt  in 
the  world's  history  hanging  over  them,  but  possessing  an  enormous  army 
of  trained  veterans  and  a  world-beating  navy. 

Then,  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic,  a  nation  that  thinks  it  "  can  whip 
all  creation,"  and  acts  on  that  principle — a  hundred  million  overfed,  money- 
making  people,  nine-tenths  of  whom  could  not  load  a  modern  infantry  rifle 
if  they  should  ever  happen  to  see  one;  a  country  of  countless  dollars  pro- 
tected by  obsolete  battleships  and  submarines  that  can  neither  float  nor 
sink;  a  nation  rich  but  undefended,  confident  but  weak,  dictatorial  in 
manner  but  powerless  in  action. 

America  sits  on  an  open  powder  barrel.  Will  the  Victors  of  the  Great 
War  apply  the  match? 

Get  this  stirring  and  tremendous  book,  and  read  what  will  happen — 
in  Mr.  Maxim's  own  words.  He  will  tell  you  where  the  match  will  be 
applied,  what  points  in  controversy  will  bring  on  the  collision — and  then 
what  will  take  place  with  startling  swiftness. 

And— 

He  tells  what  may  be  done,  even  at  this  late  day,  for  effective  defense. 

As  Mr.  Maxim  has  cut  out  all  royalty,  the  publishers  are  thereby 
enabled  to  furnish  a  special  edition  of  "Defenseless  America"  at  only 
fifty  cents  a  copy. 

The  book  may  be  obtained  of  or  ordered  through  any  bookstore,  or 
the  publishers,  Hearst's  International  Library  Company,  119  West  40th 
Street,  New  York,  will  send  it  postage  paid  to  any  address  for  sixty  cents, 
or  ten  copies  in  a  single  package  for  five  dollars — fifty  cents  a  copy.  The 
library  edition,  superior  paper  and  binding,  may  still  be  had  at  two  dollars 
a  copy. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below, 
or  on  the  date  to  which  renewed.  Renewals  only: 

Tel.  No.  642-3405 

Renewals  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  date  due. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 

LQ   MAY  I  B  73  -J2M    24 


LD21A-20m-3,'73 
(Q8677slO)476-A-31 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


YB  04122 


5  2  5.:)  6  6 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


